Science Can't Give Us Knowledge

[Dimmesdale]

I am doubtful now that science can even provide us with knowledge of its claims. At least, if we take it alone at face value.

Science gives us a model. The atom, I've heard, cannot be literally described as having smaller constituent parts in the way we represent it. But the model has practical application, so we stick to it.

And so we stick to our other scientific theories in the same way. We don't know with any absolute certainty that they are true, but they have explanatory power insofar as they make sense of the data we perceive.

Take the idea of the firmament in ancient times. People thought a crystal dome separated the water that existed in outer space. This was their explanatory mechanism for how rain was produced. And that the sky was blue, there being water "up there." Now we don't believe in a firmament because we have other ways of explaining the same phenomenon. Nonetheless, the same principle seems to hold as in science: we have an explanatory mechanism that can be wrong, but persuasive.

So there's no reason to think that science can give us "facts" - it can only render interesting explanations that make sense of the data we "see."

[Purple Knight]

So there's no reason to think that science can give us "facts" - it can only render interesting explanations that make sense of the data we "see."

It can also test those hypotheses, which is the foundation of the scientific method.

[Dimmesdale]

So there's no reason to think that science can give us "facts" - it can only render interesting explanations that make sense of the data we "see."

It can also test those hypotheses, which is the foundation of the scientific method.

Let me see if I can make sense of this.

Let's say we want to test something like whether two objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their masses. So we take a trip to the moon, where there is more or less a perfect vacuum. And we drop a bowling ball and a feather at about the same length, more or less.

So what have we proven from this, exactly. We have proven, that, indeed, it appears that two objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their masses. So far so good. I take no issue with this.

So we "know something." But I would say this is at the level of appearance. Conditions were so-and-so, and this gave us the outcome so-and-so. And this seems to hold as a general rule.

But does this hold as a metaphysical principle, then, that it is true that two objects (must) fall at the same rate regardless of their masses? Actually no, because we remain stuck at the level of appearances. Sure, it is a practical fact that generally, whenever we make a similar experiment, the principle holds, but what if one day the bowling ball went up and the feather went sideways? In other words, how can we rule out possible exceptions such as miracles or "quantum fluctuations?" How can we rule out that this is an illusion altogether? Or that the world is a thought in the mind of God, and he only "decrees" by fiat that two objects fall at the same rate regardless of their masses? To declare it as an absolute fact is on par with thinking one will never die, because so far all one's days one has been alive.

[Divine Insight]

Take the idea of the firmament in ancient times. People thought a crystal dome separated the water that existed in outer space. This was their explanatory mechanism for how rain was produced. And that the sky was blue, there being water "up there." Now we don't believe in a firmament because we have other ways of explaining the same phenomenon. Nonetheless, the same principle seems to hold as in science: we have an explanatory mechanism that can be wrong, but persuasive.

That's a pretty bad example you chose for trying to suggest that science can be wrong. I think we can be 100% confident that the scientific explanation for rain is completely correct.

So there's no reason to think that science can give us "facts" - it can only render interesting explanations that make sense of the data we "see."

I strongly disagree with this. Science has provided us with many facts. In fact, it has never broken down in what it claims to actually know. Where it fails to provide precise facts is only in areas where science itself freely admits that it doesn't know the details. You mentioned the structure of atoms, but science doesn't claim to know for certain the precise structure of atoms. To the contrary is tells us about the observations that lead to the rules of Quantum Mechanics and freely admits that these rules require behaviors that we don't understand. None the less, the rules are obviously correct since they have been making correct predictions of how reality works. So science got the rules right even if it can't convert than into a picture that is intuitively accessible to humans.

And far more importantly, science is all we have. There is nothing else to turn to.

What are you going to turn to if not science? Pure philosophy has proven itself to be a failure as we can philosophically imagine all sort of scenarios that clearly have nothing to do with our reality.

And I certainly hope you're not going to suggest that we should turn to religion. Religions have also proven themselves to be false. So they are no better than pure philosophy (i.e. pure guessing).

So there's nothing better than science. Like it or not, science is all you can trust. All you need to do is be careful to pay attention to the difference between scientific facts, and scientific speculations.

General Relativity = Fact
Quantum Mechanics = Fact.
Evolution = Fact
Humans are Great Apes = Fact

String Theory = Speculation
Multiverse = Speculation
Many Worlds = Speculation

Nowhere does science claim that these speculative theories are facts.

So if you actually pay attention to what science claims are facts, and what it recognizes as speculation there is no problem with science.

Science is all you have. There is nothing else to turn to.

[Purple Knight]

Let's say we want to test something like whether two objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their masses. So we take a trip to the moon, where there is more or less a perfect vacuum. And we drop a bowling ball and a feather at about the same length, more or less.

So what have we proven from this, exactly. We have proven, that, indeed, it appears that two objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their masses. So far so good. I take no issue with this.

So we "know something." But I would say this is at the level of appearance. Conditions were so-and-so, and this gave us the outcome so-and-so. And this seems to hold as a general rule.

But does this hold as a metaphysical principle, then, that it is true that two objects (must) fall at the same rate regardless of their masses? Actually no, because we remain stuck at the level of appearances.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

The scientific method is inherently inductive logic.

Rather than deductive logic, the conclusion gained from inductive logic is not absolutely necessarily true, it simply becomes more and more likely to be absolutely true the more it is tested.

But eventually, when people have tried over and over to disprove this law, and they can't do it, eventually they will give up and admit that that's the way it is. This is how all higher animals gain knowledge, and it's been so for two hundred million years. We in particular also quantify the scientific method, making it even better.

If it didn't work very, very well, there would be no reason for us to have brains at all. We would just run on instinct, and that would be just as good and less wasteful.

However, the innovation that allowed animals to begin to reason was successful, indicating that knowledge can be gained this way; that it's fruitful and worth the energy. But foolproof? No. It doesn't have to be.

[Dimmesdale]

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

The scientific method is inherently inductive logic.

Rather than deductive logic, the conclusion gained from inductive logic is not absolutely necessarily true, it simply becomes more and more likely to be absolutely true the more it is tested.

I take issue with this word "likely." On what basis can something be said to be more "likely" true than some other thing? How can we be justified in using this word "likely" as we would need to know reality comprehensively to even DEMONSTRATE that one conclusion has a greater "chance" of being the case than another? How do we know that "chance" even exists, from our human vantage-point?

I think that all one can safely say is that these outcomes are common. And that as a practical matter we should be prepared to die since death is common. But if it is the case that it was ordained from time immemorial that my grandmother was to be whisked away to paradise alive and in her sleep, then it was never strictly speaking "likely" that she was going to die. Chance never would have factored into such a scenario.

But eventually, when people have tried over and over to disprove this law, and they can't do it, eventually they will give up and admit that that's the way it is.

I disagree. As an absolute rule, it doesn't have to hold. Again, the law has universal effect insofar as it is commonly attested to, but this need not rule out exceptions to the rule which may or may not slip underneath the radar. Unless we have comprehensive knowledge of reality, we can't be sure. It's as simple as that.

This is how all higher animals gain knowledge, and it's been so for two hundred million years. We in particular also quantify the scientific method, making it even better.

If it didn't work very, very well, there would be no reason for us to have brains at all. We would just run on instinct, and that would be just as good and less wasteful.

However, the innovation that allowed animals to begin to reason was successful, indicating that knowledge can be gained this way; that it's fruitful and worth the energy. But foolproof? No. It doesn't have to be.

I actually don't believe we descend from apes anymore. Humans differ from the animals radically, so radically in fact that we cannot be said to reside within the same class as other living entities. That is my opinion at this time.

But I am interested in hearing your argument fleshed out more, as I am not sure I understand it.

[Divine Insight]

I actually don't believe we descend from apes anymore. Humans differ from the animals radically, so radically in fact that we cannot be said to reside within the same class as other living entities. That is my opinion at this time.

The problem with this is that it is just an opinion, and one that cannot even be made rigorous.

You seem to be ignoring that the animal kingdom is already broken down into classifications.

We are a member of the "vertebrates"

We are a member of the "mammals"

We are a member of the "primates"

We are a member of the "Great Apes"

In other words, exactly how much science do you need to actually deny in order to hold a non-rigorous personal opinion that humans shouldn't be considered to be animals?

And for what purpose?

Where would it get you?

Where do you go after you have declared that humans are not animals?

[Purple Knight]

I take issue with this word "likely." On what basis can something be said to be more "likely" true than some other thing? How can we be justified in using this word "likely" as we would need to know reality comprehensively to even DEMONSTRATE that one conclusion has a greater "chance" of being the case than another? How do we know that "chance" even exists, from our human vantage-point?

We can observe that it serves us. Without the knowledge that probability applies reliably to reality, at least in ways that can affect us, casinos couldn't make money.

And in the same way that a Human can approach a slot machine and start to understand that he usually loses, a Human can approach nature and draw similarly reliable conclusions.

I think that all one can safely say is that these outcomes are common. And that as a practical matter we should be prepared to die since death is common. But if it is the case that it was ordained from time immemorial that my grandmother was to be whisked away to paradise alive and in her sleep, then it was never strictly speaking "likely" that she was going to die. Chance never would have factored into such a scenario.

You're correct; probability is our way of quantifying a lack of knowledge. If we know everything from the outset there's of course no reason to use words such as improbable or likely.

But eventually, when people have tried over and over to disprove this law, and they can't do it, eventually they will give up and admit that that's the way it is.

I disagree. As an absolute rule, it doesn't have to hold. Again, the law has universal effect insofar as it is commonly attested to, but this need not rule out exceptions to the rule which may or may not slip underneath the radar. Unless we have comprehensive knowledge of reality, we can't be sure. It's as simple as that.

No, we can't be sure, and I didn't say we could. I described that after a certain point, it becomes wasteful to keep trying to disprove something, and more rational to simply admit that that's the way it is. If the law holds 99% of the time, it also brings an objective benefit to assume the law is true 100% of the time, even if it isn't.

I actually don't believe we descend from apes anymore. Humans differ from the animals radically, so radically in fact that we cannot be said to reside within the same class as other living entities. That is my opinion at this time.

That's fine. What purpose do you think our brains serve, then?

If you ate oysters, and puked your guts out, not once, but seven or eight times, and you had never failed to puke your guts out after eating oysters, what would be your conclusion, and how would you alter your behaviour?

[Dimmesdale]

The problem with this is that it is just an opinion, and one that cannot even be made rigorous.

Actually I would beg to differ, but I don't really feel like arguing that, and would fall into "preaching" so to speak, which I am not actually qualified to do.... Maybe if you insist.

You seem to be ignoring that the animal kingdom is already broken down into classifications.

We are a member of the "vertebrates"

We are a member of the "mammals"

We are a member of the "primates"

We are a member of the "Great Apes"

Land vehicles are also divided into categories. There are Rolls-Royces and there are Toyota Corollas.

Because Rolls-Royces came before Toyota Corollas, does that mean the former fathered the latter with a Ford Mustang?

In other words, exactly how much science do you need to actually deny in order to hold a non-rigorous personal opinion that humans shouldn't be considered to be animals?

And for what purpose?

Where would it get you?

Where do you go after you have declared that humans are not animals?

Humans are a unique animal. Absolutely unique I would say. My opinion is actually not my own. I would actually say it is of Super-human Origin. But, again, I'm not sure how to get into that.

I have to think about this and await your response. I will divulge my view if you are really curious.

[Dimmesdale]

You're correct; probability is our way of quantifying a lack of knowledge. If we know everything from the outset there's of course no reason to use words such as improbable or likely.

Unless, perhaps, there is a real wildcard sort of force, like actual "free will" in the mix. But, barring this, I would say things are perfectly determined by prior causes, rooted in a final Cause.

But eventually, when people have tried over and over to disprove this law, and they can't do it, eventually they will give up and admit that that's the way it is.

I disagree. As an absolute rule, it doesn't have to hold. Again, the law has universal effect insofar as it is commonly attested to, but this need not rule out exceptions to the rule which may or may not slip underneath the radar. Unless we have comprehensive knowledge of reality, we can't be sure. It's as simple as that.

No, we can't be sure, and I didn't say we could. I described that after a certain point, it becomes wasteful to keep trying to disprove something, and more rational to simply admit that that's the way it is. If the law holds 99% of the time, it also brings an objective benefit to assume the law is true 100% of the time, even if it isn't.

It is wasteful practically speaking. We HAVE to assume laws to be absolute to function pragmatically. If we designed a spaceship willy-nilly then we jeopardize lives. However, if we look to God's Great Wisdom and Providence, that He Shapes Nature according to His Sweet Will and that, in truth, ANYTHING is POSSIBLE, then we have every right to broaden our horizons..... That's my opinion.

I actually don't believe we descend from apes anymore. Humans differ from the animals radically, so radically in fact that we cannot be said to reside within the same class as other living entities. That is my opinion at this time.

That's fine. What purpose do you think our brains serve, then?

If you ate oysters, and puked your guts out, not once, but seven or eight times, and you had never failed to puke your guts out after eating oysters, what would be your conclusion, and how would you alter your behaviour?

I think that our brains reflect Divinity, and the purpose is to experience/realize/serve God. We have knowledge insofar as we are graced by God's mercy and lovingkindness. This is the real purpose of knowledge, all other purposes being subsidiary to it. Our intelligence isn't simply something developmental, but inherent. We are born intelligent, but that intelligence is covered by illusion. I don't want to preach at you, but this is very simply what I believe....