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.
Science is limited
Moderator: Moderators
-
livingwordlabels
- Apprentice
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:51 am
- Location: uk
- Contact:
Re: Science is limited
Post #161You have not answered my question. But I will answer yours.EduChris wrote:Evidence for what? Which of my statements do you disagree with? Do you think that science deals with something other than the natural, physical world?JohnA wrote:EduChris wrote:Science deals strictly with the natural, physical world (whatever that might be). But most persons want and need (and operate on the basis of) more than mere "factual knowledge of the physical world." We also employ logic, which is the realm of philosophy. We employ emotions, which are the realm of art, music, and literature. And most of us yearn for the immortal, the non-contingent, the sacred.livingwordlabels wrote:...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.
So I agree that science is limited; it is but one prism through which we interpret our existence and our perceptions. Science cannot deal with that which is non-contingent, non-material, and lovingly relational; it cannot deal with that which is most important to most people.
That is you claim.
Now, can you back this up please - evidence please?
Evidence for your claim that science is limited.Evidence for what?
At this stage you have only made claims. I need to examine your evidence before I can state what I disagree with, and why.Which of my statements do you disagree with?
No, but are you claiming there is more than the natural? That brings me back to my question:Do you think that science deals with something other than the natural, physical world?
Please state your evidence for your claim that science is limited.
Can you now answer my question please.
Re: Science is limited
Post #162If science were unlimited, then colleges and universities wouldn't have music departments, or literature departments, or art departments, or philosophy departments, or religion departments, and so on. If science were not limited, then our colleges and universities would offer only science classes.JohnA wrote:...Please state your evidence for your claim that science is limited...
Science can tell me how to build a bomb. Science can explain the likely effects of using that bomb at a certain time and place. But science can't tell me whether I should use that bomb; hence, science is limited.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
Re: Science is limited
Post #163EduChris wrote:If science were unlimited, then colleges and universities wouldn't have music departments, or literature departments, or art departments, or philosophy departments, or religion departments, and so on. If science were not limited, then our colleges and universities would offer only science classes.JohnA wrote:...Please state your evidence for your claim that science is limited...
Science can tell me how to build a bomb. Science can explain the likely effects of using that bomb at a certain time and place. But science can't tell me whether I should use that bomb; hence, science is limited.
That is what is called a conditional statements (P ->Q, If P then Q). There are truth tables for conditional statements.If science were unlimited, then colleges and universities wouldn't have music departments, or literature departments, or art departments, or philosophy departments, or religion departments, and so on. If science were not limited, then our colleges and universities would offer only science classes.
Would it be ok to summarize your argument thus far as:
P: There are non-science classes at colleges/universities
C: Therefore science is limited
I think your last sentence is of relevance here.Science can tell me how to build a bomb. Science can explain the likely effects of using that bomb at a certain time and place. But science can't tell me whether I should use that bomb; hence, science is limited.
Would it be ok to summarize your argument as:
P1: There are non-science classes at colleges/universities
P2: Science can't say whether a bomb should be used
C: Therefore science is limited
Am looking forward to your response here.
Re: Science is limited
Post #164You have oversimplified, but I won't quibble with your simplification unless/until you try to attack the argument on simplistic grounds.JohnA wrote:...Would it be ok to summarize your argument as:
P1: There are non-science classes at colleges/universities
P2: Science can't say whether a bomb should be used
C: Therefore science is limited
Am looking forward to your response here.
I'm willing to wait and see what you have to say about the examples I provided. Perhaps that will allow the argument to move forward.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
Re: Science is limited
Post #165Well. State your argument then. Can you do this - in P and C format?EduChris wrote:You have oversimplified, but I won't quibble with your simplification unless/until you try to attack the argument on simplistic grounds.JohnA wrote:...Would it be ok to summarize your argument as:
P1: There are non-science classes at colleges/universities
P2: Science can't say whether a bomb should be used
C: Therefore science is limited
Am looking forward to your response here.
I'm willing to wait and see what you have to say about the examples I provided. Perhaps that will allow the argument to move forward.
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.
Re: Science is limited
Post #166I was giving examples, not making a formal argument. But if you want a more formal argument, here goes:JohnA wrote:...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.
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.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #167
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.JohnA wrote:bluethread wrote: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.JohnA wrote:
Are you denying that humans are responsible for the climate change and that it is harming the planet?
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.
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.
Post #168
Why does it need to be the proximate cause? I think it would be enough to establish that one substantially affects the other.bluethread wrote: Is human activity the proximate cause of increases in the average of temperatures on earth. There are way too many factors to determine that.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #170
?
What is substantial and how does one establish that in a laboratory as dynamic as a planetary system?instantc wrote:Why does it need to be the proximate cause? I think it would be enough to establish that one substantially affects the other.bluethread wrote: Is human activity the proximate cause of increases in the average of temperatures on earth. There are way too many factors to determine that.
