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.

[flitzerbiest]

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.

If by "scientific method" you mean the four step process taught to middle school students, I agree with you. In fact, much of the pseudoscience I've had thrust at me (by completely scientifically illiterate relatives and church friends) appears to follow that recipe with almost childish invariance.

The concepts which are most seriously thrashed by sham science peddlers such as ICR and CRS are reproducibility, preponderance of evidence, and existing knowledge as a springboard for new hypotheses. They demonstrate an insatiable tendency to claim "smoking guns"--single points of aberrant or unexplained data which they claim undoes all the vast amount of research which precede them.

I think the term you're looking for is pseudoscience, which isn't really 'science' at all.

Agreed. I was trying to be diplomatic. I'm the new kid on the block here.

[ChaosBorders]

Agreed. I was trying to be diplomatic. I'm the new kid on the block here.

Not much need to be diplomatic regarding definitions. If it doesn't form testable explanations and predictions about the natural world, it isn't science. If it does, but those tests don't include the elements you mentioned, it is at best shoddy science. More often than not though, it still just flat out wouldn't be science.

[Goat]

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.

That reminds me of the short story of Ursula Le Guin " The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas ". A fine story.. and can be very disturbing.

[sickles]

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.

I believe that scientific inquiry is an incredibly valuable thought tool. I do think it has limits. Primarily, it has difficulty quantifying human constructs (such as religion, emotions). Scientific inquiry can only be used piecemeal when thinking abstractly. And since thinking abstractly the only thing seperating us from the critters, im glad to know that pure logic isnt the best way to think, nor the most sucessful.

What questions would be impossible to adrress with SI.. hmm.. like cnorman said, capital punishment. Abortion is another. Slave labor. Anything that deals with good or evil, whatever is NOT in the grey area, requires the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. I know we do not possess the knowledge. So, it is up to society, and not to the scientists. Slavery or no Slavery isnt a problem to be solved. It is a decision to be thought about , debated about, and decided upon. SI is a problem solver. That type of thinking does not apply to moral issues.

To think about something abstract, we usually really on other means of inquiry. Free Association is one. Bricolage, improvisation. Story telling (think einstien's thought experiments). These are other thought tools that can yeild moving, informative knowledge, but since it isnt falsifiable, it can never been science.

We can learn about right and wrong through Shakespear and through Homer. We cant from physics and astronomy.

[flitzerbiest]

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.

I believe that scientific inquiry is an incredibly valuable thought tool. I do think it has limits. Primarily, it has difficulty quantifying human constructs (such as religion, emotions). Scientific inquiry can only be used piecemeal when thinking abstractly. And since thinking abstractly the only thing seperating us from the critters, im glad to know that pure logic isnt the best way to think, nor the most sucessful.

What questions would be impossible to adrress with SI.. hmm.. like cnorman said, capital punishment. Abortion is another. Slave labor. Anything that deals with good or evil, whatever is NOT in the grey area, requires the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. I know we do not possess the knowledge. So, it is up to society, and not to the scientists. Slavery or no Slavery isnt a problem to be solved. It is a decision to be thought about , debated about, and decided upon. SI is a problem solver. That type of thinking does not apply to moral issues.

To think about something abstract, we usually really on other means of inquiry. Free Association is one. Bricolage, improvisation. Story telling (think einstien's thought experiments). These are other thought tools that can yeild moving, informative knowledge, but since it isnt falsifiable, it can never been science.

We can learn about right and wrong through Shakespear and through Homer. We cant from physics and astronomy.

I agree that ethics might be a challenging area for scientific inquiry, but not impossible. Things left untried are often seen as impossible. Two of your examples (religion and emotions) are wide open to scientific inquiry, and much work has already been done.

[McCulloch]

I believe that scientific inquiry is an incredibly valuable thought tool. I do think it has limits. Primarily, it has difficulty quantifying human constructs (such as religion, emotions).

Is this an area of practical difficulty or an absolute limit?

Anything that deals with good or evil, whatever is NOT in the grey area, requires the knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

I claim that, in principle, good and evil can be discussed objectively. Good is that which ultimately improves human well-being; evil is that which reduces human well-being. Human well-being is only some form of aggregation of human brain-states, so, in principle, subject to scientific inquiry.

I know we do not possess the knowledge.

I agree. We have a really really long way to go.

So, it is up to society, and not to the scientists. Slavery or no Slavery isnt a problem to be solved. It is a decision to be thought about , debated about, and decided upon. SI is a problem solver. That type of thinking does not apply to moral issues.

Why not? What type of thinking does apply? How can you know that a correct decision has been reached?

To think about something abstract, we usually really on other means of inquiry. Free Association is one. Bricolage, improvisation. Story telling (think Einstien's thought experiments). These are other thought tools that can yield moving, informative knowledge, but since it isn't falsifiable, it can never been science.

These are all creative ways to get ideas and thus are a valuable part of even the scientific process. They generate hypotheses. Should the output of these creative processes be accepted without validation?

We can learn about right and wrong through Shakespear and through Homer. We can't from physics and astronomy.

What about statistics, neurology and anthropology?

[ChaosBorders]

I claim that, in principle, good and evil can be discussed objectively. Good is that which ultimately improves human well-being; evil is that which reduces human well-being. Human well-being is only some form of aggregation of human brain-states, so, in principle, subject to scientific inquiry.

Well-being is typically defined as what is ultimately good for a person. You're not saying anything different than 'what is good for humans is what is good for humans'. The problem is that it can't be objectively shown 'what is good for humans.' You state that human well-being is an aggregation of human brain states, and maybe that is the case, but which brain states are "good"? That is a matter of opinion and cannot be objectively shown.

[ChaosBorders]

I agree that ethics might be a challenging area for scientific inquiry, but not impossible. Things left untried are often seen as impossible. Two of your examples (religion and emotions) are wide open to scientific inquiry, and much work has already been done.

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that 'ethics might...not be impossible?' I would certainly agree that emotions will eventually be quantifiable, and that certain branches of ethics are open to scientific inquiry. But certain aspects, such as objective normative ethics, I do not think can ever be determined through science.

[McCulloch]

The problem is that it can't be objectively shown 'what is good for humans.'

It is quite remarkable how difficult it can be to get people to concede that human well-being is what should concern us. For example, the Roman Catholic Church is more concerned about preventing contraception than about preventing the rape of children. So, if we are concerned about human well-being, we have what Sam Harris calls an inversion of priorities. But, to the point, I think that we can say that the molestation and torture of children is not good for humans and that a sense of achievement and fulfillment in the lives of humans is good. There are a whole lot of find gradations between these two extremes which are currently beyond objective measurement.

I don't think that we have any obligation to take seriously the moral dictates of those who clearly are not objectively concerned with human well-being, anymore than we need to take seriously the opinions with regard to biology or physics of those who are not concerned with the facts and evidence relevant to those fields.

We have years of research in neurology, sociology and psychology. We have made very impressive gains in societies' treatment of women. Now suppose that some people think that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating them or killing them when they try to get out, is as good as anything we've come up with. We know enough about human well-being right now to declare based on neurology, sociology and psychology that this is not good; good as defined by all the factors included in human well-being.

And there many scientific truths that we will never be able to test because we cannot get the data. For example, how many birds are in flight over the surface of the Earth at this moment? We have no idea, and it just changed. And yet that is a very simple question about the nature of reality, which we know has an answer. We know that questions of human well-being do have answers. Some of the answers may well be difficult or even impossible to find. However, throwing battery acid in the face of a little girl, for the crime of learning to read, is clearly not a mode of sanely pursuing human welfare.

Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors including genetics, neurology, sociology and economics. There are scientific truths to be known about how we can achieve human well-being. I really believe that we must start to use the sciences to discover those truths and stop relying on tradition, culture and divine revelation that deflect us from getting valid answers.

[flitzerbiest]

I agree that ethics might be a challenging area for scientific inquiry, but not impossible. Things left untried are often seen as impossible. Two of your examples (religion and emotions) are wide open to scientific inquiry, and much work has already been done.

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that 'ethics might...not be impossible?' I would certainly agree that emotions will eventually be quantifiable, and that certain branches of ethics are open to scientific inquiry. But certain aspects, such as objective normative ethics, I do not think can ever be determined through science.

Well, first of all, science (anthropology, archeology, etc) may shed substantial light on how ethical systems arise and why certain elements seem to be present on most systems. Understanding how ethics develop will almost certainly entail the ability to develop ethics. Second, science will continue to eat away at the past bases for normative ethics, i.e. "My book says God wants _______". I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't tell you how science might inform ethics in the future (if at all), but surely you have to recognize the rickety character of past vehicles for ethical understanding.