Can or does science accurately describe our reality?

[John_DiFool]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

That’s a bit like saying the reality of a colour-blind person is not the same as the reality of a person with normal colour vision; of course, there exist certain questions in the sphere of experience of the one that have no saliency to the other, such as ‘Does this shirt go with these pants?’, but there still is an objective reality to the frequency of light, and even to how both person’s eyes (and brains) react to light incident on the retina. And using systematic analysis, model building and -testing, both would eventually come to the same theory of light, regardless of their individual contexts, as would the frog and the tiger; to me, and it seems to a good portion of other posters in this thread, this is a far more fundamental definition of ‘reality’ rather than what is and isn’t important in certain arbitrary situations.

Okay then: say one of the color-blind people gets an operation (artificial cone implants, stem cells preprogrammed to grow the appropriate cones, etc.). Afterwards, after the bandages come off, he can distinguish between red & green for the first time in his life.

Does he gain new facts about the universe? And if he does, are these facts fully predictable, down to the exact “quality” of the red & green he perceives, such that he could tell his color-blind buddy before his operation precisely what to expect? And, if he can’t, doesn’t that mean that the subjective contains certain facts which cannot be predicted by even an theorist who has fully solved all the physical facets of existence?

@GIGObuster

Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle’s appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light.

No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function.** Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.**

Yet, despite the truth of all the above (which I’m not disputing, even tho I am generally skeptical of CSICOP, but that’s beside the point), almost all of the giants of quantum physics (Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, etc.) were fully aware of the limitations of science’s description of reality, and to one extent or another had a quasi-mystical worldview. Kinda ironic, eh? James Jeans says,

“The essential fact is simply that all the pictures which science now draws of nature, and which alone seem capable of according with observational fact, are mathematical pictures. They are nothing more than pictures-fictions if you like, if by fiction you mean that science is not yet in contact with ultimate reality. Many would hold that, from the broad philosophical standpoint, the outstanding achievement of twentieth-century physics is not the theory of relativity with its welding together of space & time, or the theory of quanta with its present apparent negation of the laws of causation, or the dissection of the atom with the resultant discovery that things are not what they seem; it is the general recognition that we are not yet in contact with ultimate reality. We are still imprisoned in our cave, with our backs to the light, and can only watch the shadows on the wall.”

Schroedinger was even more succinct:

“Please note that very recent advance [of quantum and relativistic physics] does not lie in the world of physics itself having acquired this shadowy character; it had ever since Democritus of Abdera and even before, but we were not aware of it; we thought we were dealing with the world itself.”

That people, in the year 2010, are still fighting the earlier battles that go back to the 18th century, which place science & religion in opposing warring camps, evermore fated to be at each other’s throats, is sad in a way; I’d really like to see people advance the argument beyond such dualistic simplicities.

@Try2B_Comprehensive

@SyuRi

Given that we think therefore we exist

Le cogito is a tautological error.

Premise: I think.
Conclusion: I am.

You can’t posit “I” in the premise of a proof to prove that thing’s existence. Sorry.

Indeed. Descartes stumbled over the truth, but, like most people in that situation, just picked himself off the ground and kept going in the same direction. Much better would be

“I am aware”
“Therefore awareness exists (but not necessarily the “I”).”

[John_DiFool]

@Cisco

@John_DiFool

Cisco, I can’t speak for Yumblie, but I think you completely missed his point.

What is at all ambiguous about the very first sentence of his post? If he meant something other than “science is unlimited in scope, and can answer every question” then he sure did a poor job of phrasing it.

No. he meant that the scope of science is wider than what is it is generally posited as. In his example, he gained new facts about the world-that fire feels hot, and feels painful if you touch it. Past that, I’ll shut up now and let him argue/clarify his point.

[GIGObuster]

@John_DiFool

almost all of the giants of quantum physics (Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, etc.) were fully aware of the limitations of science’s description of reality, and to one extent or another had a quasi-mystical worldview. Kinda ironic, eh?

Not much, the fact remains that what we got from the latest experiments reaffirms the idea that the middle world where we live is not the quantum one.

@John_DiFool

That people, in the year 2010, are still fighting the earlier battles that go back to the 18th century, which place science & religion in opposing warring camps, evermore fated to be at each other’s throats, is sad in a way; I’d really like to see people advance the argument beyond such dualistic simplicities.

Me too, I would say that the latest experiment shows that many scientists do not need to go mystical when encountering quantum physics.

[Yumblie]

@John_DiFool

@Cisco

@John_DiFool

Cisco, I can’t speak for Yumblie, but I think you completely missed his point.

What is at all ambiguous about the very first sentence of his post? If he meant something other than “science is unlimited in scope, and can answer every question” then he sure did a poor job of phrasing it.

No. he meant that the scope of science is wider than what is it is generally posited as. In his example, he gained new facts about the world-that fire feels hot, and feels painful if you touch it. Past that, I’ll shut up now and let him argue/clarify his point.

Right. I didn’t mean that science can answer every conceivable question from “What is my purpose in life?” to “What should I have for breakfast tomorrow?” That would be silly. I’m simply referring to this idea that luddites and religious people have latched onto, where they use science to defend ideas that they like, and for ideas they don’t like they simply say that science is wrong. The same process gave us the laws of thermnodynamics, our computer infrastructure, biological evolution, dishwashers, antibiotics, our knowledge of the planets and stars and everything we know about the universe, and it all boils down to the logic we live our everyday lives on. Science is not some cultish ritual reserved for the elite, it’s open to anyone. So it’s annoying that people point to “science” being “wrong”. The scientific process works pretty well actually. Individual people can use it the wrong way, and many certainly have over the years, but hate the player, not the game.

[Cisco]

@Yumblie

Right. I didn’t mean that science can answer every conceivable question from “What is my purpose in life?” to “What should I have for breakfast tomorrow?” That would be silly. I’m simply referring to this idea that luddites and religious people have latched onto, where they use science to defend ideas that they like, and for ideas they don’t like they simply say that science is wrong. The same process gave us the laws of thermnodynamics, our computer infrastructure, biological evolution, dishwashers, antibiotics, our knowledge of the planets and stars and everything we know about the universe, and it all boils down to the logic we live our everyday lives on. Science is not some cultish ritual reserved for the elite, it’s open to anyone. So it’s annoying that people point to “science” being “wrong”. The scientific process works pretty well actually. Individual people can use it the wrong way, and many certainly have over the years, but hate the player, not the game.

Well, you’re technically right on a fairly simplistic level. I would say first of all that the “what is my purpose in life” questions are far more interesting, but that’s a personal opinion, so fine if you disagree. But with regards to individual people using science the wrong way, you have to remember that science does not exist outside of a human context. Humanity and science are inseperable. I don’t have much in the way of defense for the religious dogmatists, but it is understandable that “luddites” can take a conservative attitude toward science when it has given us zyklon b, gunpowder, nuclear weapons, pollution, the automobile (400,000 deaths per year), facilitated modern slavery (in the sense that poor people in other countries work themselves to the bone for almost nothing so you can have the latest electronic gadget-- you don’t think they can really make iphones for $100 using ethical business practices, do you?), thalidomide, the electric chair, the predator drone, and on and on and on. Methodologically, science has and necessarily always will have a clear conscience, but in practice, it’s not always all it’s cracked up to be.

I’m not saying science is evil. Far from it. Medical science, in particular, especially in the last few decades, tends to be awesome. But have some perspective. We should take the good with the bad when we’re gazing with wide wonder at the space shuttle or the internet-enabled dildo.

[Yumblie]

@Cisco

@Yumblie

Right. I didn’t mean that science can answer every conceivable question from “What is my purpose in life?” to “What should I have for breakfast tomorrow?” That would be silly. I’m simply referring to this idea that luddites and religious people have latched onto, where they use science to defend ideas that they like, and for ideas they don’t like they simply say that science is wrong. The same process gave us the laws of thermnodynamics, our computer infrastructure, biological evolution, dishwashers, antibiotics, our knowledge of the planets and stars and everything we know about the universe, and it all boils down to the logic we live our everyday lives on. Science is not some cultish ritual reserved for the elite, it’s open to anyone. So it’s annoying that people point to “science” being “wrong”. The scientific process works pretty well actually. Individual people can use it the wrong way, and many certainly have over the years, but hate the player, not the game.

Well, you’re technically right on a fairly simplistic level. I would say first of all that the “what is my purpose in life” questions are far more interesting, but that’s a personal opinion, so fine if you disagree. But with regards to individual people using science the wrong way, you have to remember that science does not exist outside of a human context. Humanity and science are inseperable. I don’t have much in the way of defense for the religious dogmatists, but it is understandable that “luddites” can take a conservative attitude toward science when it has given us zyklon b, gunpowder, nuclear weapons, pollution, the automobile (400,000 deaths per year), facilitated modern slavery (in the sense that poor people in other countries work themselves to the bone for almost nothing so you can have the latest electronic gadget-- you don’t think they can really make iphones for $100 using ethical business practices, do you?), thalidomide, the electric chair, the predator drone, and on and on and on. Methodologically, science has and necessarily always will have a clear conscience, but in practice, it’s not always all it’s cracked up to be.

I’m not saying science is evil. Far from it. Medical science, in particular, especially in the last few decades, tends to be awesome. But have some perspective. We should take the good with the bad when we’re gazing with wide wonder at the space shuttle or the internet-enabled dildo.

Again, I think you’re reading more into what I’m saying than I intended, or misinterpreting it. I’m not talking about any morality in science, or saying that people aren’t justified in being resentful of some of the great technological atrocities of the past. Concerning nuclear weapons, cars, the electric chair, and so on, there is a lot of ambiguity in their rightful use, but there isn’t any ambiguity in the fact that they work, and do what they’re supposed to do, according to the scientific principals that designed them.

If you go by the world view that nuclear weapons get their power from the nucleus of atoms undergoing fission, and then turn around and say the electric chair is powered by fairy magic and that anyone who cites the laws of electromagnetism is lying, you better be able to back up such an assertion with science, otherwise you’re being logically inconsistent.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@John_DiFool

Okay then: say one of the color-blind people gets an operation (artificial cone implants, stem cells preprogrammed to grow the appropriate cones, etc.). Afterwards, after the bandages come off, he can distinguish between red & green for the first time in his life.

Does he gain new facts about the universe? And if he does, are these facts fully predictable, down to the exact “quality” of the red & green he perceives, such that he could tell his color-blind buddy before his operation precisely what to expect? And, if he can’t, doesn’t that mean that the subjective contains certain facts which cannot be predicted by even an theorist who has fully solved all the physical facets of existence?

Qualia are like names of things: if I teach somebody that some cute little furry beast goes by the name ‘cat’, sure you can say that he has learned a new fact about the universe – the idea of a ‘cat’ will now be called upon whenever he sees such a cute little furry beast --, just as the colourblind person has learned some new fact about the universe – the idea ‘green’ will now be called upon whenever his cones register light of the associated frequency. Does now the fact that we can give the cat a name of our own choosing mean that the description of a cat is somehow incomplete if it doesn’t include how cute little furry beasts come to be associated with the word ‘cat’? I wouldn’t say so, and I’d be surprised if anybody did. The word ‘cat’ is just a mapping, of an idea to a certain neural input; similarly, the subjective experience of green is another such mapping. It doesn’t invalidate the possibility of a physical description of the world any more than our ability to call a cat by its name, or indeed our ability to give any given object any name we choose, does.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@John_DiFool

Indeed. Descartes stumbled over the truth, but, like most people in that situation, just picked himself off the ground and kept going in the same direction. Much better would be

“I am aware”
“Therefore awareness exists (but not necessarily the “I”).”

That isn’t really better. It is actually the same mistake. You posit ‘awareness’ in your premise, then voila, it is manifest in your conclusion! Rubbish.

[Cisco]

@Yumblie

@Cisco

@Yumblie

Right. I didn’t mean that science can answer every conceivable question from “What is my purpose in life?” to “What should I have for breakfast tomorrow?” That would be silly. I’m simply referring to this idea that luddites and religious people have latched onto, where they use science to defend ideas that they like, and for ideas they don’t like they simply say that science is wrong. The same process gave us the laws of thermnodynamics, our computer infrastructure, biological evolution, dishwashers, antibiotics, our knowledge of the planets and stars and everything we know about the universe, and it all boils down to the logic we live our everyday lives on. Science is not some cultish ritual reserved for the elite, it’s open to anyone. So it’s annoying that people point to “science” being “wrong”. The scientific process works pretty well actually. Individual people can use it the wrong way, and many certainly have over the years, but hate the player, not the game.

Well, you’re technically right on a fairly simplistic level. I would say first of all that the “what is my purpose in life” questions are far more interesting, but that’s a personal opinion, so fine if you disagree. But with regards to individual people using science the wrong way, you have to remember that science does not exist outside of a human context. Humanity and science are inseperable. I don’t have much in the way of defense for the religious dogmatists, but it is understandable that “luddites” can take a conservative attitude toward science when it has given us zyklon b, gunpowder, nuclear weapons, pollution, the automobile (400,000 deaths per year), facilitated modern slavery (in the sense that poor people in other countries work themselves to the bone for almost nothing so you can have the latest electronic gadget-- you don’t think they can really make iphones for $100 using ethical business practices, do you?), thalidomide, the electric chair, the predator drone, and on and on and on. Methodologically, science has and necessarily always will have a clear conscience, but in practice, it’s not always all it’s cracked up to be.

I’m not saying science is evil. Far from it. Medical science, in particular, especially in the last few decades, tends to be awesome. But have some perspective. We should take the good with the bad when we’re gazing with wide wonder at the space shuttle or the internet-enabled dildo.

Again, I think you’re reading more into what I’m saying than I intended, or misinterpreting it. I’m not talking about any morality in science, or saying that people aren’t justified in being resentful of some of the great technological atrocities of the past. Concerning nuclear weapons, cars, the electric chair, and so on, there is a lot of ambiguity in their rightful use, but there isn’t any ambiguity in the fact that they work, and do what they’re supposed to do, according to the scientific principals that designed them.

If you go by the world view that nuclear weapons get their power from the nucleus of atoms undergoing fission, and then turn around and say the electric chair is powered by fairy magic and that anyone who cites the laws of electromagnetism is lying, you better be able to back up such an assertion with science, otherwise you’re being logically inconsistent.

Well, have you read the entire thread? Much of the position you’ve retreated to has been covered-- some of it by me, even. I can’t know what you’re thinking; I can only know what you post, and I objected to what you posted, which was: “It’s annoying when people declare that there are questions that science cannot answer, as if science is some bizarre complicated ritual that is limited in scope.” Since you’re now (apparently?) saying you didn’t really mean it, then I don’t think we’re in disagreement.