Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
... LastLast
  1. #101
    Can't say that Science will ever have all the answers...because we don't even know all the questions yet. One thing is certain though...Science is the best tool we have to search for those answers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sicari View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  2. #102
    To answer the title-question:

    Yes, there are some questions that it seems unlikely that science will answer in this universe - and we already know some of the issues that we don't see that we can answer.

    As already mentioned anything outside the observable universe is not observable, and unless we move significantly beyond the milky way some features of cosmic background radiation cannot be measured in a bias-free way.

    And direct observations of individual gravitons (assuming they exists as many think) seem basically impossible for technical reasons (and not only with current technology).

    However, that science doesn't answer the questions doesn't imply that non-science will answer them.

  3. #103
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderas View Post
    Define useful.
    I would define it as anything that lengthens survivability over the long term. Ideally something useful would be eternally useful, but some objects and ideas are only useful in the context of a certain era.

  4. #104
    Blademaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by XDurionX View Post
    The whole point of science is to ask new questions.
    I disagree. That is far too broad! I would argue that The whole point of science is to make sense out of what we observe, let the question arise from our observation, and then make something useful out of the answer (Technology) If your after "Science" for your source of Truth, your barking up the wrong tree. Like Professor Jones once said about archeology applies to Science as well, "Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall"

    Science cannot, by its very nature, provide 100% certainty about anything. So, why not use Science to be practically useful? (basically this is what instrumentalism says) instead of putting your hope and trust in it like some kind of religious fanatic
    Last edited by elurin; 2019-05-02 at 05:44 PM.

  5. #105
    Of course not. If something exists, it is defined by scientific law in some way. It's only a question of finding it. It will take time.

    Our settled civilization is only about 12,000 years old. Imagine the questions and answers known to a people that have been civilized for 100,000 years. And that is only an eyeblink in cosmic time.
    "Independence forever!" --- President John Adams
    "America is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." --- President John Quincy Adams
    "Our Federal Union! It must be preserved!" --- President Andrew Jackson

  6. #106
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderas View Post
    Define useful. I think Philosophy has provided useful answers to me, for helping me live a happier better life. Science has helped me understand the world I live in, but I can't think of anything in science that has necessarily made me a happier person for knowing the answer. Just saying.
    Fair point. I should expand, slightly.

    I'm speaking to the principles of the scientific method, rather than the field itself; that reality is observable, that replicable testing can lead to understanding a function, etc. There are a bunch of social sciences that meet the definition I mean, but don't qualify as "pure science", because the practicality of experimentation is unethical as hell; you can't test sociological or a lot of psychological concepts without outright human experimentation without people's knowledge or permission, for instance (since knowing they're being tested and evaluated changes outcomes). It is testable, just unethical in practice.

    One of those core principles is also logic and reason, which brings in a lot of philosophy, which is itself testable in many cases. Logic is as testable as mathematics, for instance. Once we hit things like ethical philosophy, where there are multiple schools, though, we're asking questions that don't have objective answers, and it's impossible to say which is "right". The question itself is often meaningless, it's how you approach the answer.

    Where I'm drawing the line is the bullshit opinion that because science can't overtly explain X, therefore there must be some divine or supernatural explanation for X, and whoever makes one up gets to claim their magical explanation is "true". Even if that kind of guessing makes you feel better, it's a comforting falsehood. It serves the same functional purpose as a toddler's security blanket; reality is scary, so you have something you hold onto for comfort. In the long run, it's not healthy.

    And that's not an argument against religion or faith. Faith, as a concept, acknowledges that it's a leap made without knowing. If you knew, for a fact, that the article of faith was true, it would not be faith. It would be verifiable fact. Faith is, necessarily, a leap into the unknown, and a giving-up of knowability itself.

    And that's fine, for those points where science can't provide answers. But it doesn't provide those same answers, itself. It's just a way to become comfortable with the lack thereof.

  7. #107
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,700
    Quote Originally Posted by elurin View Post
    I disagree. That is far too broad! I would argue that The whole point of science is to make sense out of what we observe, let the question arise from our observation, and then make something useful out of the answer (instrumentalism)
    Yeah but science is a special case of reason. There's a reason as to why the sculpture of Venus is more beautiful than a toilet, or why prime numbers are the values that they are. But we can't necessarily "make sense" of it with science.

    Instrumentalism is only right if you think science is about the prediction of observations. Where as I would say scienctific realism is the correct stance, realism says there is an objective truth beyond what is currently observable with physical instruments.

  8. #108
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR - USA
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Fair point. I should expand, slightly.

    I'm speaking to the principles of the scientific method, rather than the field itself; that reality is observable, that replicable testing can lead to understanding a function, etc. There are a bunch of social sciences that meet the definition I mean, but don't qualify as "pure science", because the practicality of experimentation is unethical as hell; you can't test sociological or a lot of psychological concepts without outright human experimentation without people's knowledge or permission, for instance (since knowing they're being tested and evaluated changes outcomes). It is testable, just unethical in practice.

    One of those core principles is also logic and reason, which brings in a lot of philosophy, which is itself testable in many cases. Logic is as testable as mathematics, for instance. Once we hit things like ethical philosophy, where there are multiple schools, though, we're asking questions that don't have objective answers, and it's impossible to say which is "right". The question itself is often meaningless, it's how you approach the answer.

    Where I'm drawing the line is the bullshit opinion that because science can't overtly explain X, therefore there must be some divine or supernatural explanation for X, and whoever makes one up gets to claim their magical explanation is "true". Even if that kind of guessing makes you feel better, it's a comforting falsehood. It serves the same functional purpose as a toddler's security blanket; reality is scary, so you have something you hold onto for comfort. In the long run, it's not healthy.

    And that's not an argument against religion or faith. Faith, as a concept, acknowledges that it's a leap made without knowing. If you knew, for a fact, that the article of faith was true, it would not be faith. It would be verifiable fact. Faith is, necessarily, a leap into the unknown, and a giving-up of knowability itself.

    And that's fine, for those points where science can't provide answers. But it doesn't provide those same answers, itself. It's just a way to become comfortable with the lack thereof.
    Cool that works for me. Yeah, I've heard the arguments about the God of the gaps thing before, but I didn't find anything particularly useful in the arguments, personally (and I identify as agnostic).

    I can't remember exactly what was said, but a friend of mine was telling me something about high level quantum mathematics, seemingly breaking down unless there was an outside observer, which then made all the equations work. Have you heard of this before? Do you have any articles or input on it? (My explanation is probably an absolute butchering of what he said, but he's a lot more knowledgeable about these types of things than I am, although I do love to hear about it when I have the chance)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulla View Post
    Senator Moore will be sitting in that seat and I hope it burns you to your core.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Trump did it so it's good. I put my faith in a strong political figure because I lack self-esteem and feel threatened by a changing world. Whoever stands against him is bad because I do not understand their arguments and I have a simple tribalistic mindset created through the consumption of right-wing media.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderas View Post
    I can't remember exactly what was said, but a friend of mine was telling me something about high level quantum mathematics, seemingly breaking down unless there was an outside observer, which then made all the equations work. Have you heard of this before? Do you have any articles or input on it?
    There are many persons trying to sell quantum snake oil.

    The specific claim is obviously false, as not all quantum theories require an outside observer.

    Some work without any observer at all - e.g. the many-worlds interpretation; and they all produce the same measurements. (On the other hand "the many world interpretation" is often sold with the idea of there existing this other world where "you" won the lottery, etc.)

  10. #110
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR - USA
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    There are many persons trying to sell quantum snake oil.

    The specific claim is obviously false, as not all quantum theories require an outside observer.

    Some work without any observer at all - e.g. the many-worlds interpretation; and they all produce the same measurements. (On the other hand "the many world interpretation" is often sold with the idea of there existing this other world where "you" won the lottery, etc.)
    You got any quantum science to help me make this world be the where where "I" win the lottery?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulla View Post
    Senator Moore will be sitting in that seat and I hope it burns you to your core.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Trump did it so it's good. I put my faith in a strong political figure because I lack self-esteem and feel threatened by a changing world. Whoever stands against him is bad because I do not understand their arguments and I have a simple tribalistic mindset created through the consumption of right-wing media.

  11. #111
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderas View Post
    I can't remember exactly what was said, but a friend of mine was telling me something about high level quantum mathematics, seemingly breaking down unless there was an outside observer, which then made all the equations work. Have you heard of this before? Do you have any articles or input on it? (My explanation is probably an absolute butchering of what he said, but he's a lot more knowledgeable about these types of things than I am, although I do love to hear about it when I have the chance)
    It's not that quantum systems require an observer, it's that observation itself affects quantum outcomes; it's impossible to look at a quantum system without affecting its function.

    Also, "observation" doesn't mean a sentient mind. For instance, the simplest experiment (high school labs can repeat it) is the double-slit experiment. There's a metric ton of stuff out there on it, and I highly recommend looking it up yourself if you're interested at all, but the short form is this;

    Take a light source, like a flashlight, and fire it towards a surface with two parallel slits cut in it for the photons to pass through, and record what the resulting effect on a second surface behind the slits is. It'll be an interference pattern, with brighter and darker bands.

    Now take a light source that can emit single photons at a time. Fire those photons at the same thing. Fire, record, and keep doing that to generate data.

    Because these are single photons in a vacuum, there should be nothing else affecting or interfering with them. Just photons, slits, receptor.

    Do this, generate and plot the data, and you'll find that what you get is also an interference pattern, with high-density and low-density bands. The same as you got with the beam, despite there being no other photons to interfere with the ones you're firing. They're traveling as both a particle and a wave, due to quantum shenanigans.

    Now, build a system that does nothing but detect which slit a given photon passes through. Shouldn't change anything, right?

    Except it does. Now, you just get two bands, no interference pattern. Just by detecting which slit the photon goes through, you changed how it behaves.

    It's the device doing the "observation", not you directly; it isn't about sentience, just about measurement.

    Yes, all this is incredibly weird. Welcome to quantum mechanics.

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderas View Post
    Well, in his mind it's a fact... it may also be a fact that you'll never be able to change his mind
    That's the difference between "Fact" and "Truth"

    Facts are objective.
    Truth can be subjective.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sicari View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  13. #113
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    That's the difference between "Fact" and "Truth"

    Facts are objective.
    Truth can be subjective.
    Could you give an example of a subjective truth? I can't think of one. Imo, subjectivity is about searching through different emotions/feelings, hoping that you'll geuss an objective truth that resists falsification.

  14. #114
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR - USA
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    That's the difference between "Fact" and "Truth"

    Facts are objective.
    Truth can be subjective.
    Are attempts at humor lost on you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulla View Post
    Senator Moore will be sitting in that seat and I hope it burns you to your core.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Trump did it so it's good. I put my faith in a strong political figure because I lack self-esteem and feel threatened by a changing world. Whoever stands against him is bad because I do not understand their arguments and I have a simple tribalistic mindset created through the consumption of right-wing media.

  15. #115
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    58,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    That's the difference between "Fact" and "Truth"

    Facts are objective.
    Truth can be subjective.
    This really is not the case.

    If something is subjective, that's opinion. It cannot be "truth", not unless you can objectively verify it, at which point, it ceases to be subjective.

    Now, before you respond, bear in mind there's a lot of people who want their opinions to be seen as "truth", and thus either deliberately lie or are so wildly biased they can't see the difference between fact and opinion any more. So citing one person making the claim isn't a counter.

  16. #116
    I believe that science can only explain a small percentage of reality.

  17. #117
    The Lightbringer Lazuli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Your Moms House
    Posts
    3,164
    I mean... what is the alternative to science? Literally nothing. The most pointless debate ever.
    The greatest ever thread on MMO-Champion

    I work a lot, fuck my life.

  18. #118
    We're already pressing pretty hard against the boundaries. It baffles me that some people go "you can't trust science!" because they don't know the first millisecond or so of the Big Bang, when I'm just sitting here flabbergasted that we ever got as far as having a model for 99.9 repeating % of the universe's history, dating unfathomable levels of history before we even existed.

    If there are some questions ultimately left unanswered, it sure as hell won't be because we didn't try hard enough.

    If someone can come up with a methodology that has a better track record that we could use at that point, let me know, because religion ain't it.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This really is not the case.

    If something is subjective, that's opinion. It cannot be "truth", not unless you can objectively verify it, at which point, it ceases to be subjective.

    Now, before you respond, bear in mind there's a lot of people who want their opinions to be seen as "truth", and thus either deliberately lie or are so wildly biased they can't see the difference between fact and opinion any more. So citing one person making the claim isn't a counter.
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Could you give an example of a subjective truth? I can't think of one. Imo, subjectivity is about searching through different emotions/feelings, hoping that you'll geuss an objective truth that resists falsification.

    This sort of sums it up.

    http://www.differencebetween.net/mis...act-and-truth/

    Fact is basically something that exists, or is present in reality. Hence, these are things that can be seen visually, and these are the things that can actually be verified. Facts are objective matters rather than subjective ones. It is not just something that you believe, but rather these are more or less the things that can be observed empirically, or by the senses. So, facts can be seen and heard, as well as proven by the other senses.

    Truth can be described as the true state of a certain matter, may it be a person, a place, a thing or an event. It is what a person has come to believe. If he believes that something is true, then it is true. It also answers the questions of what’s really happening. In the technical sense, facts can answer certain ‘why’ questions, like ‘where’ or ‘when’, and even ‘how’, while truth answers the question ‘why’. The question of ‘how’, and even ‘what’, are said to be answerable by either of the two.
    A fact is something that is.
    A truth is something you believe.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2019-05-02 at 08:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sicari View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazuli View Post
    I mean... what is the alternative to science? Literally nothing. The most pointless debate ever.
    You mean "literally nothing that you're capable of thinking of."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •