Why Science Fails

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Riddle

It is a fact that the Bible was written a very long time ago, and there are historical documents backing its integrity. Hence, in order to ascertain what happened a very long time ago, we can look at testimonies in the Bible, which provide evidence for what happened. Is this good evidence? Probably not, but it's still evidence.

There is no evidence that Elijah rode a chariot of fire into heaven, nor that Jonah was swallowed by a whale and lived to tell the tale, nor that there is an actual place named Eden guarded by a cherub wielding a flaming sword.

These would be instances of evidence for religion, rather than evidence that the Bible is, in fact, contextualized by history, which we already know by virtue of its existence as a physical phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Riddle

Science too requires faith. Many scientific theories postulate the existence of unobservables, i.e. an atom, hence scientific theories also require faith. We can only observe atoms and subatomic particles through indirect means, such as observing their effects with particle detectors. However, whether the postulated particle actually causes the observed effect requires a little faith.

Smoke and Mirrors: The Science of the Mysterious

Originally Posted by Riddle

Also, only deduction can prove things conclusively. Science uses induction, which is logically invalid.

Induction is a perfectly sound method for using logic. You are correct that it does not prove anything conclusively. You are incorrect that science only uses induction.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by floslib

That's because I have a very poor attention to detail when I'm writing, and tend to make poor assumptions when it comes to commonality of language. I'll try this again.

All definitions are coming from dictionary.com.

I was discussing with someone on another forum how our definitions of mind are rather fuzzy, so we have a tendency of turn mind into matter as we are discussing mind itself.

Just for fun, I'm going to play with these definitions. Yes, I am fully clothed.

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

A materialist atheist religion based upon a belief system called objectivity, in which singularity (humans) attempts to categorize reality through rituals (experiments) into objective doctrine (paradigms).

Consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

The base element or substance of reality, from which all forms arise. Consciousness is causeless, therefore timeless, yet it can only be realized by the singularity through change. The singularity is like a wave on the ocean. The ocean being consciousness.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I would add:

Historical accounts of various attempts to apprehend consciousness by the singularity.

Intuition: direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

Perception does not come before intuition.

Consciousness informing the singularity through awareness of the now.

Spirituality: the pursuit of knowledge outside the bounds of the physical or material world, which may be done through many different methods, including logic, religion, and intuition.

The direct realization of consciousness through the breath (spiritus, Latin, to breathe).

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

There is no evidence that Elijah rode a chariot of fire into heaven, nor that Jonah was swallowed by a whale and lived to tell the tale, nor that there is an actual place named Eden guarded by a cherub wielding a flaming sword.

Testimonies can count as evidence.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

These would be instances of evidence for religion, rather than evidence that the Bible is, in fact, contextualized by history, which we already know by virtue of its existence as a physical phenomenon.

Don't understand what you're saying here.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Induction is a perfectly sound method for using logic.

What do you mean by this? Fact: Induction is logically invalid.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You are correct that it does not prove anything conclusively. You are incorrect that science only uses induction.

I never said science only uses induction. However, how does it use deduction? The scientific method uses empirical evidence to draw general conclusions from particular instances. This is inducton not deduction. If you are thinking of abduction, well that is also logically invalid.

[Sherpa]

Originally Posted by Plato

That's what I said.

As for me doing a science project in school... yes, I also did a philosophy degree.

I don't buy it. Even a sophomore philo student could compile a better argument than this puerile attempt. [/quote]

Originally Posted by Plato

There is no explanation for consciousness.

What would constitute an explanation? And are you looking for an explanation of how the consciousness could have arisen and how it operates and why we have it? Or are you asking for some vague explanation for the so-called qualia?

This has been a problem from the very beginning. From the renaissance onwards we have been struggling with this.

We've been struggling with a good many of the questions your namesake has posed still with little conclusively to say on them.

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

What foundations would these be? And what happens when they get contradicted? What it is mean when you say "you are free".

This realisation is why I am now officially free from the limitations of science for the first time.

Cool, just please don't be a mechanical engineer for fear that you might be forced to rely on that faulty science when you build a bridge.

Now I have logical proof that science fails.

Even if this muddled bunch of nonsense were a coherent argument, it would not be a logical proof. How can you have a degree in philosophy and not know what a logical proof is?



Sorry about being so combative on my first post, but I read this and it was so absurd I just had to respond.

[Sherpa]

Originally Posted by magi13

Fellow seekers, let us no longer pursue to answer this question because our own opinions are clashing in a negative manner.

So we're going to avoid a topic because we have disagreement? I think argument is quite a positive thing. How can the pursuit of truth not be positive?

Let us just respect the thread starter's opinion, since we ourselves has shown proof otherwise.

Shouldn't we show an opinion to be wrong if we believe it to be so?

Originally Posted by strawbear

read the first post but not the rest. i think the scientific method is lame and just a paradigm and just a sure way to validate our thoughts about this mysterious world. i do admit i am not sure i clearly understand the scientific method but i think it's along the lines that you have a theory and do experiments to see if it's true or false, and a strong theory is one that can be falsified.

Good God.

Originally Posted by Arboretor

and the author's website
David Chalmers

Aye. Good site.

Originally Posted by Plato

Because the world is not material or physical, is my answer.

I believe that matter cannot cause consciousness, and yet consciousness exists. "Functionalism" holds that matter aranged in the right way (i.e. the brain) can. Obviously, I disagree.

Neither is the world dualistic - matter and "spirit" - because how could spirit interact with matter?

Reality is something else and I'm not sure what.

You claim to have created a "logical proof" yet you are utterly vague regarding even your conclusion, much less your premisses. You seem to have simply asserted that something is the case and left it at that.

"Obviously, I disagree." Case Closed.

Aside: Do you find that every mind that we are aware of appears to arise when there is a brain present is evidence for believing that a brain is at least a necessary condition for a mind?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Just for fun, I'm going to play with these definitions. Yes, I am fully clothed.

*snickers* Being nude in a philosophical debate is a good thing, you know. Reveal yourself!

I'll make a half-heareted response to this, mostly because I'm late for work like... now.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

A materialist atheist religion based upon a belief system called objectivity, in which singularity (humans) attempts to categorize reality through rituals (experiments) into objective doctrine (paradigms).

Now define objectivity, explain why "objective doctrine" should be synonymous with "paradigm", and show how the scientific method gets worked in.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The base element or substance of reality, from which all forms arise. Consciousness is causeless, therefore timeless, yet it can only be realized by the singularity through change. The singularity is like a wave on the ocean. The ocean being consciousness.

Probable. Why is consciousness different from a string in string theory? Is it?

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Consciousness informing the singularity through awareness of the now.

Is it necessary to anthropomorphize consciousness in order to explain intuition?

Originally Posted by Riddle

Testimonies can count as evidence.

Yes. They're evidence that a person is stating something, and usually that they believe a set of possible facts. I can give testimony here, now, that God told me Jesus Christ never existed and that Paul made up the entire thing, including the writing of all the Gospels.

Is this evidence that God exists? No, it is not. It is evidence that I believe God exists and that I believe He spoke to me. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Riddle

Don't understand what you're saying here.

You say that there is factual evidence in religion.

I'm pointing out that there is no factual evidence of anything specifically religious. There is factual evidence that yes, the authors of the Bible did in fact exist in a point of time and made references to things that can be corroborated with archaeological evidence.

On the other hand, I hear Troy was discovered; does that mean that Athena and Ares once warred on those plains on behalf of Trojans and Greeks? Does the existence of the Roman aqueduct signal that Romulus was its founder and that he was suckled by a she-wolf?

Originally Posted by Riddle

What do you mean by this? Fact: Induction is logically invalid.

Show me. Don't have to dredge up a link; conclude it logically for us.

[autarko]

Lots of interesting discussion in this thread...

Why does science have to be limited to studying the physical world?

Sure, science has given us technology but more than that it has provided us with more divers possibilities for experiencing the world both inside and outside of ourselves, enriching our consciousness not just our technology.

I like these definitions of science:
skill: ability to produce solutions in some problem domain
Methodological activity, discipline, or study

Today's far-out spiritual stuff may become tomorrow's science - how about Isaac Newton studying the planets and coming up with mathematical theories of gravity and light? Many people at the time would have considered these things impossible to get any sort of a grip on yet nowadays our culture has broadened to include these phenomena within our consciousness.

Someone may write a philosophical essay, or claim to channel an ascended master but if their work doesn't
*identify and describe patterns
*seek to develop arguments clearly
*describe tools or methods which others can use
*relate their discoveries to everyday experience
*demonstrate results which would exclude contradictory ideas

then it's not what I would call science and I would have doubts about any claims it makes.

A good test of scientific work is whether it makes accurate and informative predictions.

A scientist may predict the time it takes for a ball to roll down a hill. They can study the ball and the hill and theories about balls rolling down hills and get it right most of the time. If they don't get it right then people will stop listening to them.

On the other hand a non-scientist may also make a bold prediction but when it doesn't turn out they don't seem too bothered, as if they place more value on their style of making predictions or seducing their listeners than they do the outcome of their prediction.

It may be that consciousness itself is a realm beyond mind but to me that doesn't mean it can't be studied scientifically. We can work on defining it and what it is not. Then we can look for correlations between changes in consciousness and changes in other measurements. Most people would say thoughts are non-physical yet we have PET scans of people's brains which show certain patterns depending on their type of thought.

[magi13]

Check this out, it actually talks about this subject

Can Science Explain Consciousness? - Philosophy Talk - Entertainment Audio Download

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Show me. Don't have to dredge up a link; conclude it logically for us.

First we have Hume's problem of induction, which basically says that there is no logical justification to infer a general conclusion from particular instances. If we use the argument of past success, this too is inductive, and to use induction to justify induction is circular.

But it cannot be justified by deduction...

Suppose I observe an F that is also a G, this is one instance of F being G. Suppose I observe another instance of F being G, I might be tempted to conlude that all F's are G. However, no matter how many instances of F being G that I observe, it never logically follows that all F's are G, since there are many F's in the past, present and future that are impossible for me to observe.

Hence, all I can logically conclude is that all observed F's are G. Science however infers from its observations general conclusions in the form of laws of nature. For example, repeated scientific experiments show that F is a G, hence science concludes that it is a law that all F's are G. And although this conclusion may have strong scientific evidence, it is still tentative and falsifiable, since one instance of an F that is not a G disproves the theory.

A deductive argument is logically valid only if the conclusion has to be true if the premises are true. Since the conclusions of inductive arguments are tentative even when the premises are true, induction cannot be a logically valid method of reasoning under the same rules that deduction is. Hence, how can we justify the logic of induction? It cannot be justified by deduction, and yet it is circular to justify something by itself, i.e. through inductive arguments of past success or uniformity.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Riddle

First we have Hume's problem of induction, which basically says that there is no logical justification to infer a general conclusion from particular instances. If we use the argument of past success, this too is inductive, and to use induction to justify induction is circular.

But it cannot be justified by deduction...

So, this is my mistake. I thought you were referring to mathematical induction, and I failed to actually think about what you were saying this morning. I'll respond to your entire post, though.

Originally Posted by Riddle

Suppose I observe an F that is also a G, this is one instance of F being G. Suppose I observe another instance of F being G, I might be tempted to conlude that all F's are G. However, no matter how many instances of F being G that I observe, it never logically follows that all F's are G, since there are many F's in the past, present and future that are impossible for me to observe.

For anyone who couldn't follow that, the same principle has been recently rehashed as the Black Swan Theory. It may be easier to read Taleb than Hume.

Originally Posted by Riddle

Hence, all I can logically conclude is that all observed F's are G. Science however infers from it's observations general conclusions in the form of laws of nature. For example, repeated scientific experiments show that F is a G, hence science concludes that it is a law that all F's are G. And although this conclusion may have strong scientific evidence, it is still tentative and falsifiable, since one instance of an F that is not a G disproves the theory.

And any scientist worth their salt will agree perfectly with this.

A hypothesis, in order to be considered scientific, must first meet Popper's criterion of falsifiability. That is, there has to be a point to conducting an experiment. But further, it is also recognized that conclusions drawn from such experiments cannot be the final word.

The conclusions drawn from experiments are used to build a mathematical model of the world. Such a model is naturally and necessarily incomplete, because it's a model, not the thing itself. Thus, there is always a chance that anything built on top of that model will inexplicably fail.

At some point, by pragmatism, we cannot continue experimenting and making narrow conclusions. By our human nature, and by the necessity of survival and progress, we need to induct. This is not a scientific action. We assume that, given no evidence to the contrary, the universe does work as we have modeled it. We assume that if we eat a certain piece of meat, cooked to this degree, it will nourish us. This is the basis by which all technological progress is made.

But I covered all of this in the provided link.

Originally Posted by Riddle

A deductive argument is logically valid only if the conclusion has to be true if the premises are true. Since the conclusions of inductive arguments are tentative even when the premises are true, induction cannot be a logically valid method of reasoning under the same rules of deduction. Hence, how can we justify the logic of induction? It cannot be justified by deduction, and yet it is circular to justify something by itself, i.e. through inductive arguments of past success or uniformity.

Well put.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by autarko

Today's far-out spiritual stuff may become tomorrow's science - how about Isaac Newton studying the planets and coming up with mathematical theories of gravity and light? Many people at the time would have considered these things impossible to get any sort of a grip on yet nowadays our culture has broadened to include these phenomena within our consciousness.

Challenge:

Figure out what the link between Isaac Newton, Freeman Dyson, and Will Wright is.

I'm going to render the answer in white: panspermia.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Plato

There is no explanation for consciousness.

This has been a problem from the very beginning. From the renaissance onwards we have been struggling with this.

Descartes was the first to recognise the problem: how can mind exist in a purely mechanical universe? The answer: substance dualism. There is matter which exists in space and time, and mind which is outside those realms.

Dualism fails on so many levels but the biggest problem is that there is no way mind could act upon matter to control the body. Descartes claimed that the pineal gland in the brain is where the mind controls the body, but I think even he knew he was lying to himself.

Meanwhile, materialism has many many different variations, all of which fail because they can never adequately explain consciousness in terms of matter.

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

This realisation is why I am now officially free from the limitations of science for the first time. I have felt it emotionally before that there is something funny going on here. I have also seen the problem that there is no place for humans or any morality in a materialistic universe. However, this was not enough to convince me... I just took it as an unfortunate fact of reality.

Now I have logical proof that science fails. Back to the drawing board and this time it's my own.

Of course there's an explanation for consciousness, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Maybe we don't know what the explanation is, but believe me, there is one.

The same situation existed with the flu in the late 18 and 1900s. People were dying by the thousands from the flu epidemic, and had no idea why. It was thought at that time that maybe a spirit was making people sick, thus the word influenza was adopted, Italian for influence, or spirit. Eventually the real culprit was found; we just had to wait for someone smart enough to not buy into the theory of ghosts making people sick, and for someone to invent the technology to see really small things, like bacteria. Eventually scientists started putting facts together, and now, it’s not so much of a mystery.

For some strange reason, we tend to have a kind of arrogance about our knowledge of things, in assuming that we know everything there is to know; therefore if we don’t understand something, there must not be an explanation. Surely it can’t be that we just don’t know that yet, can it?

Absolutely, it can. And this is one reason why some things aren't as obvious to us.

I don’t think we mean to be arrogant about our knowledge on purpose. We just don’t know that we don’t know something; otherwise we would know it, right?

Consciousness isn’t an easy subject to understand, for various reasons, none of which are really all that mysterious, but it does require some fancy thinking, and the ability to see from a different perspective.

First of all, remember that we’re trying to use our consciousness to understand our consciousness. You may at first think that there’s nothing wrong with that statement, but think about it for awhile and you may start to see a reason why this might not be so easy to do.

Hint: think about the last time you took a picture of some friends together. Why is it that you weren’t in the picture? After all, you were there too, right?

I know that sounds stupid, but the reason consciousness seems so mysterious, as though it isn't there, really isn’t all that different from the situation I just described with the camera. It's a problem of perspective, and also of asking the wrong questions, which makes us think the reason we aren't getting answers is because it's mysterious, that some kind of magic must be involved.

Also, it's not like scientists can look at another's consciousness to see how it works, because what are they supposed it see it with, other than a consciousness? I know this seems very wierd, but it can be understood.

However, with some tricky thinking, we can do something smart, like take a picture of a mirror and reveal something about the consciousness who is doing the seeing.

This is a very interesting topic.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

*snickers* Being nude in a philosophical debate is a good thing, you know. Reveal yourself!

I'll make a half-heareted response to this, mostly because I'm late for work like... now.

I have a lot going on at the moment as well, so I'll have to be quick here.

Now define objectivity, explain why "objective doctrine" should be synonymous with "paradigm", and show how the scientific method gets worked in.

People who believe in this religion think that everything is a tool, including themselves. A tool is simply a function in a grouping of some sort. Believers seek function or knowledge. A multitude of tools or functions put together into one tool is a paradigm or a machine. But like all machines, eventually the paradigm brakes down. So the priestly class attempts to fix the paradigms with their high magic, called the scientific method. Like all religions, this one has it's denominations, therefore, different paradigms, different levels of magic.

Probable. Why is consciousness different from a string in string theory? Is it?

Consciousness is not a separate idea developed by the singularity to behave or model what it perceives. That is the difference.

Is it necessary to anthropomorphize consciousness in order to explain intuition?

If you wanted to learn something, you might read a book about it. The book informs you. If the book is written in some language you don't understand, it can not inform you (beyond a lack of understanding). This points to the fact that you are personifying the information, not the book.

Relating to consciousness and the singularity, the singularity realizes consciousness. The realization and intuition are the same thing. It is not a characteristic of consciousness, rather an attribute of the singularity.

[autarko]

Originally Posted by Starman

First of all, remember that we’re trying to use our consciousness to understand our consciousness. You may at first think that there’s nothing wrong with that statement, but think about it for awhile and you may start to see a reason why this might not be so easy to do.

Yes, things often have to be studied indirectly. Have you ever tried counting the stars of the Pleiades? If you look straight at them they are a blur but if you look slightly to the side you may be able to count them.

And with the PET brain scans of people.... are you observing thought itself, or are you observing variable concentrations of radionuclides? Or are you just looking at the results of an image processing algorithm? Who cares, so long as you can spot an interesting pattern which seems to tally with experience.

[autarko]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Challenge:

Figure out what the link between Isaac Newton, Freeman Dyson, and Will Wright is.

I'm going to render the answer in white: panspermia.

So these three men reasoned that life, and probably consciousness isn't confined to planet earth.

[autarko]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I have a lot going on at the moment as well, so I'll have to be quick here.



People who believe in this religion think that everything is a tool, including themselves. A tool is simply a function in a grouping of some sort. Believers seek function or knowledge. A multitude of tools or functions put together into one tool is a paradigm or a machine. But like all machines, eventually the paradigm brakes down. So the priestly class attempts to fix the paradigms with their high magic, called the scientific method. Like all religions, this one has it's denominations, therefore, different paradigms, different levels of magic.

I agree that the scientific method isn't perfect. When you're talking about 'high magic' do you mean advanced mathematics which almost nobody is able to follow? I agree that the models sometimes seem to develop into a huge machine which has a reality all of its own and nobody seems to care whether it really relates to our usual physical reality.

[autarko]

let's say your GPS is your scientific theory or mathematical model of life and the universe. You test it out first by seeing how it performs with routes you already know. Sometimes it gets it spot on, sometimes it gives you a slightly better or worse route, sometimes it fails completely. Now, one failed route doesn't mean you throw it away; you decide to continue using it but cautiously. So it is with science. People still use Newton's laws even though they have been found not to tell the whole story.
Say, a year later you get a new GPS which claims to be much better than the old one. You have heard people say it's infallible and you begin testing it in ernest. It works really well until you take it snorkelling and use it to locate fish - you get completely lost and immediately call up the support line only to be told that it says in the small print that this product is not supported under water.
You are disappointed because you believed all the hype but when you get down and dirty with it you find it's not really that radically different from the old model.

Now, most people wouldn't have thought of taking it under water and they think you're crazy for doing so. So it is that people who design ingenious experiments which go beyond the limits of what the theory can handle often get criticized. "just let it go, why are you doing this?"
Someone may find a new use for the theory which the designers didn't think of themselves. In this way the theory grows to its full potential.

As people's consciousness expands they will always think of new experiments and seek new theories to explain the results.

[Sherpa]

edit

[Sherpa]

edit

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by autarko

I agree that the scientific method isn't perfect. When you're talking about 'high magic' do you mean advanced mathematics which almost nobody is able to follow? I agree that the models sometimes seem to develop into a huge machine which has a reality all of its own and nobody seems to care whether it really relates to our usual physical reality.

I figured he was talking about Clarke's Third Law.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Challenge:

Figure out what the link between Isaac Newton, Freeman Dyson, and Will Wright is.

I'm going to render the answer in white: panspermia.

I really like the idea of panspermia; I haven't seen that mentioned in a while. I'm not saying I totally believe it yet, but it's a great idea. I don't believe DNA, of any kind, could have orginated on it's own here on earth.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Starman

I really like the idea of panspermia; I haven't seen that mentioned in a while. I'm not saying I totally believe it yet, but it's a great idea. I don't believe DNA, of any kind, could have orginated on it's own here on earth.

Exogenesis isn't the same thing as panspermia, as I understand it.

"In water we are born, in fire we die. We seed the stars."

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Exogenesis isn't the same thing as panspermia, as I understand it.

"In water we are born, in fire we die. We seed the stars."

Thanks for the info; my free-form thinking doesn't always sync with adopted ideas and terminology, but I do learn as I go.