Why Science Fails

[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.

[Daffy Duck]

I'm just gonna be funny here. I looked up the definition of science, and by very definition, it can't fail. And some would argue that the logic you're using in your post IS a form of science.

[magi13]

P.s the title of the article should be why science can't explain consciousness. Science did not fail with respect to other fields. ^^

^,^ Science is not perfect but I like it non the less. It's a start, where people experiment and try to decipher the mysteries of our existence. It utilizes our mind to create inventions and other things.

People often take it for granted without science, there would have been no such thing as computers, electricity and what not. Then again it may be called something else if not called science. ^^,

Change, is our everlasting friend.

[JE Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Plato

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

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

Did you ever do a science project? Do you remember the steps (form a hypothesis, make a procedure etc.) That and peer-review is all science is.

Just hope you are not one of those creationists.

[Barcs]

Actually science CAN explain the mind and how it controls the body. What you're referring to is consciousness, which is THE big mystery. I wouldn't exactly call science "too limited." Science can explain almost everything in the known universe and why it acts the way it does. Consciousness cannot be explained by science because there is no way to experiment with it, just like all paranormal things. That doesn't mean that it fails, and everything else is wrong. The whole concept of dualism or duality has to do with the spirit and flesh (physical body). Not mind and body. The mind is part of the body. The brain controls the body, not your consciousness, as even when you are sleeping or unconscious the body still functions. The consciousness is just the state of being awake and aware. The thought process, decision making, physical activities, etc etc etc are all caused by the brain, and doesn't need spiritual duality to be explained.

Now with that said, I do believe in a soul, but not because of science, and just because science cannot explain something doesn't mean that it automatically does not exist. Science is proven, though, and you can't discredit it, simply because it can't explain everything yet.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Barcs

What you're referring to is consciousness, which is THE big mystery.

That's what I said.

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

[Subscreet]

I have my doubts about your philosophy degree because your "logical proof that science fails" isn't logically sound.

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 is false. The gigantic body of knowledge gained via the scientific method is constantly growing. Your example with Descartes was a poor one because in four centuries since Descartes' time we have had significant technological advances that he probably couldn't have imagined.

Have you even attempted to read any scientific literature on the field of consciousness or was this just some sort of juvenile "**** you" to science based on one man who was more of a philosopher and a mathematician? I'm sure if you actually took the time to do some research you could learn a lot about consciousness and your life as a conscious observer of this universe. You haven't even come close to "disproving" the scientific method or anything equally inane.

[magi13]

Originally Posted by Subscreet

I have my doubts about your philosophy degree because your "logical proof that science fails" isn't logically sound.

This is false. The gigantic body of knowledge gained via the scientific method is constantly growing. Your example with Descartes was a poor one because in four centuries since Descartes' time we have had significant technological advances that he probably couldn't have imagined.

Have you even attempted to read any scientific literature on the field of consciousness or was this just some sort of juvenile "**** you" to science based on one man who was more of a philosopher and a mathematician? I'm sure if you actually took the time to do some research you could learn a lot about consciousness and your life as a conscious observer of this universe. You haven't even come close to "disproving" the scientific method or anything equally inane.

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

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

Peace

[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.

[magi13]

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.

The topic is how science cannot explain consciousness. Still your post is relevant. ^^,

[Acting Like Godot]

Sir Roger Penrose has expressed the view that science's search for the Grand Unified Theory will never succeed, until science finds a way to tie in consciousness together with the other 4 elementary forces.

Further Notes by ALG:

1. Who is Roger Penrose? Just one of the most eminent living physicists in the world today.

2. What is the Grand Unified Theory? A theory that will establish the relationship between weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational interactions. It's the Big Question in physics today, and is also known as the Theory of Everything. That's because some say that the discovery of this theory effectively means the end of physics, because all remaining physics questions will be answered by then.

3. What are the "4 elementary forces"? The strong force, the electromagnetic force, the weak force and the gravitational force.

4. Did Roger Penrose really express such a view? Well, you could read his book yourself. Or you could read the book review here.

[Judge]

Science, like past and future, history and the laws of reality are all created to stablise your reality. In your night time dreams, science usually goes out the window, you can do all sorts of things that are not really possible in the day time world.

This physical reality is just another kind of dream, a little more dense, but no more real that any other level of perception. While science can explain a lot of the physicality of reality, but as the physicality is made up, that is when science runs into trouble.

Of course if you believe in science, then that wil be true for you and you'll be able to justify everything via that belief. If you don't really believe in science then that will be true for you and you can justify everything as a projection of your conscious being.

Judge

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Judge

Of course if you believe in science, then that wil be true for you and you'll be able to justify everything via that belief. If you don't really believe in science then that will be true for you and you can justify everything as a projection of your conscious being.

Judge

So, utilizing the ability to choose what I would want to believe, is of the utmost importance... Regardless of the outside influence suggesting otherwise...?

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

So, utilizing the ability to choose what I would want to believe, is of the utmost importance... Regardless of the outside influence suggesting otherwise...?

The trick is to determine how true the outside influence is.

All systems have rules.........some you can bend, some you can break.

What do you know to be true for sure?

Judge

[floslib]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Sir Roger Penrose has expressed the view that science's search for the Grand Unified Theory will never succeed, until science finds a way to tie in consciousness together with the other 4 elementary forces.

Further Notes by ALG:

1. Who is Roger Penrose? Just one of the most eminent living physicists in the world today.

2. What is the Grand Unified Theory? A theory that will establish the relationship between weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational interactions. It's the Big Question in physics today, and is also known as the Theory of Everything. That's because some say that the discovery of this theory effectively means the end of physics, because all remaining physics questions will be answered by then.

3. What are the "4 elementary forces"? The strong force, the electromagnetic force, the weak force and the gravitational force.

4. Did Roger Penrose really express such a view? Well, you could read his book yourself. Or you could read the book review here.

Well, it's possible that someone has already discovered the Theory of Everything in physics. Also, I thought the Grand Unified Theory was everything but gravity, but I could be mistaken since it was on Wikipedia I saw that.

As for the rest of the thread, there is a huge difference between science failing completely and failing to explain one element of existence. While science may not be able to do everything, it has done a lot, and as the days go on it does more and more.

Remember, 100 years ago we didn't even know about relativity or quantum mechanics. We also didn't have computers, and cars were still in their infancy and a far cry from what they are today. Science helped bring us this information and these conveniences, and I think it's safe to say without it we wouldn't have those or many other things. Given how useful a tool it is in our lives, I'd say it's hard to make the case that science outright fails. It just fails to explain consciousness at this point in time. Maybe it always will, or maybe we'll someday find a way to experiment with consciousness and learn about it in a scientific manner. If not, there's always the subjective method of self-discovery we can use to learn what we can, even if it isn't scientific or objective.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Judge

Of course if you believe in science, then that wil be true for you and you'll be able to justify everything via that belief. If you don't really believe in science then that will be true for you and you can justify everything as a projection of your conscious being.

Judge

Science is not something you choose to believe in, like a religion. It is based on facts and experiments. It's not perfect, and new developments are constantly coming out, but it is still the truth for the most part. It's not absolutely truth and can't explain everything, but it can sure explain a lot! All science is, is a way to explain things and how they interact. Knowledge. I saw that someone above called the scientific method lame. Yes, it's quite lame how science has led us to incredible technologies and amazing developments in medicine. Chances are consciousness will never be fully explained (although there's a ton of theories on it). Obviously there's more to life than just what science can explain, but to claim that it fails because it can't explain everything is a bit extreme.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Science is not something you choose to believe in, like a religion.

Isn't it...? Isn't science just a concept, a concept of like minded people observing a certain form of reality (and trying to explain it)...?

[Daffy Duck]

I find this flowchart to be a mostly accurate description of how science is different than religion: Science versus Religion

Are they both concepts? Sure. Does that mean one is no less true than the other...?

[AuspiciousEight]

Perhaps what Plato means is that the traditional scientific way of thinking fails to explain everything about life, especially the root cause of life (consciousness). Not that science itself is useless, but simply that it fails in this regard and thus may not be as close to "truth" as we've all been brainwashed to believe.

Science means different things to different people, but generally it's commonality lies in a strong faith in materialism and the physical world being "all that exists". The scientific method itself may not be flawed, but the scientific paradigm, or way of thinking, is strongly linked to the belief in the physical being all that exists.

Since consciousness and 'life' exists, the above belief must be fundamentally flawed. The logical conclusion then is to call into question the validity of the scientific paradigm of reality, since it rests primarily on an extreme faith in the physical world.

Edit: I am also free from the limitations of science.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by AuspiciousEight

Perhaps what Plato means is that the traditional scientific way of thinking fails to explain everything about life, especially the root cause of life (consciousness). Not that science itself is useless, but simply that it fails in this regard and thus may not be as close to "truth" as we've all been brainwashed to believe.

Science means different things to different people, but generally it's commonality lies in a strong faith in materialism and the physical world being "all that exists". The scientific method itself may not be flawed, but the scientific paradigm, or way of thinking, is strongly linked to the belief in the physical being all that exists.

Since consciousness and 'life' exists, the above belief must be fundamentally flawed. The logical conclusion then is to call into question the validity of the scientific paradigm of reality, since it rests primarily on an extreme faith in the physical world.

Edit: I am also free from the limitations of science.

Well, the OP makes the claim that science fails, not that it fails in a specific area. Failing in a specific area is far different.

Also, I think you're being quite harsh on the scientific paradigm, as it really depends on who you ask. Yes, there are people who will say all of reality can be explained by science, and it's all objective and physical. However, most people acknowledge that science discovers physical and objective phenomena, and anything that falls outside of this area also falls outside the purview of science. In fact, this is the basis many people, myself included, use to explain how religion and science can fit together.

In the area it covers though, science is very solid and, as I and others have said above, has done great things for us.

[vMike]

Science doesn't fail, it just takes time. Science is based on theories and experiments.
Theories there are enough, but our technology is not advanced enough to be able to do more precise experiments on the brain.

Give it a few centuries and we'll be able to download stuff directly into our mind.

[fellowtraveler]

This reminds me of a nationally-publicized legal case near here a few years ago - some people wanted to include the concept of "intelligent design" in the science curricula in their school district. Intelligent design is an attempt to de-religious-ize () the term "creationism" here in the U.S. And creationism is generally understood to mean the taking of the book of Genesis literally, as in Fundamentalist Chrisitian perspective.

The motion was defeated, thankfully. In today's world, no sense confusing the kiddies.

Anyway, of course there was a lot of debate back and forth. The creationists felt that science, evolution science specifically, was simply untrue. Their opponents argued that there is no scientific evidence for the creation story.

The most rational comments in the newspaper (with which I agree), said that it is ridiculous to take an either/or position. Why is it so hard to believe that Source, God, Creator, whatever would use means of creation like evolution that we can measure, deconstruct, even reproduce?

Spirituality and hard science are one thing, just as everything is part of that one thing. I don't care what the dictionary definitions are. Given enough time (eons, perhaps), science would discover the truth about what we consider spirtuality. There would be no science, no spirituality...just Truth.

My current "spiritual" practice and path involves both, and I'm quite happy with it. I think we are all well-advised to remain flexible and broadminded (not openminded), and remember that a label is just that.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

This reminds me of a nationally-publicized legal case near here a few years ago - some people wanted to include the concept of "intelligent design" in the science curricula in their school district. Intelligent design is an attempt to de-religious-ize () the term "creationism" here in the U.S. And creationism is generally understood to mean the taking of the book of Genesis literally, as in Fundamentalist Chrisitian perspective.

The motion was defeated, thankfully. In today's world, no sense confusing the kiddies.

Anyway, of course there was a lot of debate back and forth. The creationists felt that science, evolution science specifically, was simply untrue. Their opponents argued that there is no scientific evidence for the creation story.

The most rational comments in the newspaper (with which I agree), said that it is ridiculous to take an either/or position. Why is it so hard to believe that Source, God, Creator, whatever would use means of creation like evolution that we can measure, deconstruct, even reproduce?

Spirituality and hard science are one thing, just as everything is part of that one thing. I don't care what the dictionary definitions are. Given enough time (eons, perhaps), science would discover the truth about what we consider spirtuality. There would be no science, no spirituality...just Truth.

My current "spiritual" practice and path involves both, and I'm quite happy with it. I think we are all well-advised to remain flexible and broadminded (not openminded), and remember that a label is just that.

I wouldn't take the view that science and spirituality are one thing, but I do agree that they are compatible with each other.

Rather, I see them as different approaches with the same goal: a greater understanding of reality. Science looks for evidence and objective proof. If there's a new idea, science tried to find out more about this idea. If the evidence supports the idea, it becomes a theory or fact, depending on the nature of the evidence. If evidence contradicts the new idea, it's thrown out as being untrue. If there is no evidence, then science either looks for it, or decides to focus on other things.

Spirituality doesn't typically deal in objective proof. Rather, it tends to deal with subjective experience and some philosophy. Certainly, many spiritual people employ logic in figuring out their experiences, or in figuring out their beliefs about God, the beginning of the universe, and similar things, but they rarely deal with reality in an objective way.

So, in short, I see science as the objective approach to understanding the world, and spirituality as the subjective approach. These certainly aren't the same thing, even if the goal is the same.

Edit: As to teaching intelligent design in science class, I have to say, this absolutely should not be done. It isn't science, it's spirituality and religion. If you must, I could see talking about it and explaining that it's a religious view, not a scientific view, and briefly talking about how it could be compatible with science, but it should be made clear it's not scientific itself.

I also have no issue with it being taught in a religious setting, or being taught and explained as a religious view some people hold. There is a huge difference between learning about religious views, and searching to find if they have truth to them, and teaching those views as though they are scientific in nature.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Science is not something you choose to believe in, like a religion.

Why not?

Everything concerning science is based on everything in the physical world. Science can really add nothing to everything outside the physical world.

Science could just as easily be an illusion, like your own body, the planet and even the universe. Just because something is in the tangible reality, doesn't mean it truly exists.

Can science explain space other than to say it's a vaccuum? And yet everything exists inside space. Science has no logical explanation for space and yet it is the fundamental container of the universe.

Judge

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by floslib

So, in short, I see science as the objective approach to understanding the world, and spirituality as the subjective approach. These certainly aren't the same thing, even if the goal is the same.

I grok that you see them that way, but coming from my belief that everything are/is one, one might better understand my statement. But that's too wide a perspective for these discussions, I suppose.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by floslib

Well, the OP makes the claim that science fails, not that it fails in a specific area. Failing in a specific area is far different.

The OP posted in a forum entitled "Spirituality, Consciousness & Awareness".

I personally read his post as saying that science failed, in those sorts of areas.

[RT Wolf]

Whoa, whoa there cowboy. First off, I appreciate how you feel. The "grip" of science (which is often scientism or skepticism in disguise) does sometimes feel like shackles. However, there's serious pitfalls in what you've claimed. Keep the feeling of freedom and read on.

For example, have you looked at the work done since Descartes' time some 300-odd years ago? In the 20th century, people started to realize the very issue you're talking about: that the scientific revolution had yet to yield a good theory of the creatures that were generating the scientific theories. So, once they stopped passing the buck around for 300 years, they founded a new field called Cognitive Science. For some people this is the study of intelligence, others the study of consciousness, for others study of cognition. Complicated and diverse, this relatively new scientific field is attempting to answer your question. It hasn't really "failed" much the same way a child hasn't "failed" cause it trips while learning to walk.

However, that's not particularly satisfying. I've recently delved into the research of a man named Jordan Peterson, a professor at University of Toronto. You can find recordings of his lecutres here:

Jordan B Peterson on blip.tv

He essentially asks the question of "meaning". It's one of those things we tend to do a helluva lot of. Science is still working on the question of "meaning" especially cog sci, but there's work to be done. However, I do feel that there's this sense of science being sterile, boring, drab, dead and devoid of meaning or moral value. I disagree with that, you just need a new lens to look at science with. Anyhoo, if you're curious, I can talk more about this so feel free to PM me or reply back to this thread.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

However, that's not particularly satisfying. I've recently delved into the research of a man named Jordan Peterson, a professor at University of Toronto. You can find recordings of his lecutres here:

Jordan B Peterson on blip.tv

Thanks for posting this link, pretty interesting stuff...

[RT Wolf]

You're welcome. Here's a description of the above lectures from his site:

"The world can be validly construed as forum for action, or as place of things.

* The former manner of interpretation - more primordial, and less clearly understood - finds its expression in the arts or humanities, in ritual, drama, literature, and mythology. The world as forum for action is a place of value, a place where all things have meaning. This meaning, which is shaped as a consequence of social interaction, is implication for action, or - at a higher level of analysis - implication for the configuration of the interpretive schema that produces or guides action.

* The latter manner of interpretation - the world as place of things - finds its formal expression in the methods and theories of science. Science allows for increasingly precise determination of the consensually-validatable properties of things, and for efficient utilization of precisely-determined things as tools (once the direction such use is to take has been determined, through application of more fundamental narrative processes).

No complete world-picture can be generated, without use of both modes of construal. The fact that one mode is generally set at odds with the other means only that the nature of their respective domains remains insufficiently discriminated. Adherents of the mythological world-view tend to regard the statements of their creeds as indistinguishable from empirical "fact," even though such statements were generally formulated long before the notion of objective reality emerged. Those who, by contrast, accept the scientific perspective - who assume that it is, or might become, complete - forget that an impassable gulf currently divides what is from what should be."

Jordan B.

This is the Maps of Meaning lectures.

I find him absolutely fascinating. Very engaging speaker/presenter and also very interesting work. I've taken one class with him and I'm sitting in on the same class again this year, as well as taking his upper year one. It's a totally different way of looking at things. In case you're interested, you can also find another interesting (though faster paced) talk about neuroscience and religion here:

Chaos and the Orienting Response: A neuropsychologcially predicated model of why you might be Christ by Jordan Peterson

[wolfgang]

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 thought you quit "uni".