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.

[ChaosBorders]

It is quite remarkable how difficult it can be to get people to concede that human well-being is what should concern us.

My problem is not that I don't think human well-being should, as humans, concern us. My issue is that you cannot objectively show what human well-being actually is. Human well-being is a subjective quality and people's opinions on what it entails vary from person to person. Even if we got most (or even all) people to agree on a definition for it, that would still not make that definition objectively right.

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.

And the church might argue that the abundance of human life is a greater measure of human well-being than the negative psychological effects some already living members undergo as a result of their focus and policies. I do not agree with them, but I don't really think you can show them to be objectively wrong.

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.

Really? Because personally I don't think the sense of achievement and fulfillment that the molesters are getting is good thing. I also think they would probably disagree with you about the first part.

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.

Maybe not, but I also don't think anyone has any obligation to accept whatever definition of human well-being you put forth if they don't choose to do so. You can choose to define well-being in a manner that could probably be measurable, but I don't think you can prove that your functional definition of it is a true measure of objective human well-being.

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.

What do you feel these factors are, and how do you know that they are all that is included in true 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.

If the answers are impossible to find, then it can never be objectively shown whether something is truly good or not through human well-being.

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.

In my personal opinion, yes that is insane. But I cannot objectively demonstrate the ultimate truth of that belief. For one thing, I don't know for sure that the child wouldn't have someday read something that sparked the idea of developing a virus which would have wiped out the human race. In which case throwing acid in her face may well have led to the greatest human well-being possible in that circumstance.

But I personally still don't think the action of throwing acid in her face would have really been a 'good' act.

Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors including genetics, neurology, sociology and economics.

And are these the only factors? Some may believe that there are more factors on which science cannot shed light regarding the truth.

There are scientific truths to be known about how we can achieve human well-being.

There are scientific truths to be known about how we can potentially increase what many people consider 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.

Do you propose getting rid of "tradition, culture and divine revelation" would be good then? Because it would be rather ironic if after having done so, the science indicated that those things actually served human well-being pretty well after all.

[ChaosBorders]

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.

Yes, science may prove very useful for developing ethical systems that excel at achieving certain goals. But, given that ethics center around the concept of morality, and that in turn centers around the concept of goodness, if an objective good even exists I don't think that science will ever be able to tell us what that really is. As such, I don't think that it can tell us what our goals objectively ought to be, only how to better achieve the ones we develop.

[flitzerbiest]

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.

Yes, science may prove very useful for developing ethical systems that excel at achieving certain goals. But, given that ethics center around the concept of morality, and that in turn centers around the concept of goodness, if an objective good even exists I don't think that science will ever be able to tell us what that really is. As such, I don't think that it can tell us what our goals objectively ought to be, only how to better achieve the ones we develop.

I take it from various arguments that you are no great fan of Immanuel Kant. I'm not saying that I am either, but I do think that objective thinking about value, goodness and ethics is less hopeless than you suppose.

[ChaosBorders]

I take it from various arguments that you are no great fan of Immanuel Kant.

I'm really not.

I'm not saying that I am either, but I do think that objective thinking about value, goodness and ethics is less hopeless than you suppose.

Maybe, but hope is not an argument. (As often seems pointed out to theists around here, in one manner or another).

[flitzerbiest]

I take it from various arguments that you are no great fan of Immanuel Kant.

I'm really not.

I'm not saying that I am either, but I do think that objective thinking about value, goodness and ethics is less hopeless than you suppose.

Maybe, but hope is not an argument. (As often seems pointed out to theists around here, in one manner or another).

It wasn't an argument. It was a prediction, and couched explicitly as such, several posts up.

[ChaosBorders]

It wasn't an argument. It was a prediction, and couched explicitly as such, several posts up.

That was more a comment on McCulloch's assertions than your predictions. You could well be correct, but at the moment I see no basis for believing that an objectively true normative system of ethics can ever be developed and shown as true using science or any other tools at our disposal.

[flitzerbiest]

It wasn't an argument. It was a prediction, and couched explicitly as such, several posts up.

That was more a comment on McCulloch's assertions than your predictions. You could well be correct, but at the moment I see no basis for believing that an objectively true normative system of ethics can ever be developed and shown as true using science or any other tools at our disposal.

Well, no argument there. "Objective truth" is an elusive beast. If it exists at all, none of us has ever experienced it.

[ChaosBorders]

Well, no argument there. "Objective truth" is an elusive beast. If it exists at all, none of us has ever experienced it.

I think it would be more accurate to say that if we've experienced objective truth, we have no way of being reasonably certain of it was, nor anyway to prove it as such to anyone else.

[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.

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.

I didnt say it was impossible. I was trying to say that scientific inquiry wont take you very far, if that is your sole method of inquiry.

[sickles]

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?

practical difficulty or absolute limit? I didnt mean to say that SI cant be used in that way. Thats what i meant by "piecemeal". I was trying to point out that it wont get you to the point of a psychological construct. It can tell you things about the construct, perhaps. Tell you all sorts of facts about it , maybe, but it wont tell you "why" or "for what purpose " a construct exits.


As to your claim: When you accept my premise that to understand anything but the grey area, i.e "right and wrong", you require the knowledge of good and evil, and you also agree that we do not have this knowledge, you render any conclusion you reach through human debate about "right and wrong" totally moot, as we already have established that human beings lack the prerequisite to know the outcome the action under scrutiny.

It cant be up to the scientists (in that capacity) because what the definition of right and wrong is can change over time. One day i might take your utilitarian premise. The next i may choose to define "right" and that which promotes knowledge, and "wrong" as that which promotes ignorance. You would probably agree with both definitions, but they will clash eventually. Which will win out? A scientist couldnt tell you (i dont mean to be bashing scientists. I admire them)

What type of thinking does apply? Whatever type gets us the farthest. I think that human thought and creativity have gotten us pretty far. As has our affinity for nature. I think we will have arrived at the correct conclusion when we arent hurdling towards catastraphe with all of us piosoning the planet, or thinking we have dominion. However you define right and wrong, is how you define yourself, and your country. But there is no right scientific answer. You could decide you wanted to come up with the most effective and efficient way to achieve your "answer" or goal scientifically, but then science is just a second fiddle thought process in this example.

I think some creative inquiry solutions should be validated. I think some do not , if all the variables are taken into account. Peer review usually takes care of this. Thats why creative inquiry and scientific inquiry work well together. Each validates the other. This is from the wiki:

In his book The Savage Mind' (1962, English translation 1966), French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss used the word bricolage to describe any spontaneous action, further extending this to include the characteristic patterns of mythological thought. The reasoning here being that, since mythological thought is all generated by human imagination, it is based on personal experience, and so the images and entities generated through 'mythological thought' rise from pre-existing things in the imaginer's mind

In the discussion of constructionism, Seymour Papert discusses two styles of solving problems. Contrary to the analytical style of solving problems he describes bricolage as a way to learn and solve problems by trying, testing, playing around.

Joe L. Kincheloe has used the term bricolage in educational research to denote the use of multiperspectival research methods. In Kincheloe's conception of the research bricolage, diverse theoretical traditions are employed in a broader critical theoretical/critical pedagogical context to lay the foundation for a transformative mode of multimethodological inquiry. Using these multiple frameworks and methodologies researchers are empowered to produce more rigorous and praxiological insights into socio-political and educational phenomena. Kincheloe theorizes a critical multilogical epistemology and critical connected ontology to ground the research bricolage. These philosophical notions provide the research bricolage with a sophisticated understanding of the complexity of knowledge production and the interrelated complexity of both researcher positionality and phenomena in the world. Such complexity demands a more rigorous mode of research that is capable of dealing with the complications of socio-educational experience. Such a critical form of rigor avoids the reductionism of many monological, mimetic research orientations (see Kincheloe, 2001, 2005; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004).