Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
LastLast
  1. #121
    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.
    Do you live your entire life in agony from tooth ache? No? Then science has given you a happier life.

  2. #122
    Or, to phrase the title of the thread better, "Is Science doomed to be so unfathomably effective at its goals that it eventually runs out of questions to answer?"

    One can hope. When you weigh what a few significant advancements in knowledge were able to do for us in 20 years.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Najnaj View Post
    Do you live your entire life in agony from tooth ache? No? Then science has given you a happier life.
    No.
    "No pain" is the neutral point.

  4. #124
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    59,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    This sort of sums it up.

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



    A fact is something that is.
    A truth is something you believe.
    I understand that people use the word that way, it's just a ridiculous usage.

    By that argument, the voices a schizophrenic hears are "true", not hallucinations. All the various conflicting religions of the world are equally "true", even when they directly contradict each other. It's a useless turn of phrase, and ignores what "truth" actually means. It's an attempt to have one's opinion be granted the same consideration as fact.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    No.
    "No pain" is the neutral point.
    ...and it is because of science.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Cosmos, Quantum and Consciousness: Is Science Doomed to Leave Some Questions Unanswered?
    Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ns-unanswered/

    Physicists, philosophers debate whether research can ever solve certain mysteries of the universe—and the human mind



    As the thread title poses, do you believe science can be used to answer every question we put to it?

    I used to think yes, though have slowly changed my mind on that to no. I think it is a useful tool, but cannot answer the fundamental questions put to it.

    Things like consciousness, though it may explain the physical correlates, quantum mechanics, there is most likely no “hidden variable”, nor things like a fundamental final particle... things are infinitely small.
    This is hubris science always moves forward people at every age have the same idiotic chest thumping claim, if science cannot solve this then it will never be explained. It is at those points where those scientists use god because their egos are too large to acknowledge that someone in the future will have better tools or be smarter than they are.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    You mean "literally nothing that you're capable of thinking of."
    Until we have something that is proven to be better science is the best we have, it is very possible a new discipline arises to eclipse it but just like you need to crawl before running science would be the foundation.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Najnaj View Post
    ...and it is because of science.
    It's not "happiness" though.

  8. #128
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    25,336
    Given enough time, I'm certain science could answer any question.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    "That's my style; I like to kick 'em when they're down!"
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    It's not "happiness" though.
    No, neither is not being burned alive at the stake. The chance of being happy diminishes radically when you are in agony however ...

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Najnaj View Post
    No, neither is not being burned alive at the stake. The chance of being happy diminishes radically when you are in agony however ...
    I thought you were talking about the "neutral point."

    Well, as one physicist put it; The imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I thought you were talking about the "neutral point."

    Well, as one physicist put it; The imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man.
    Maybe you were. I was responding to a statement that philosophy was more responsible for happiness than science.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It's the device doing the "observation", not you directly; it isn't about sentience, just about measurement.
    It depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are some that link observations (or wave-function collapse) to consciousness.

    I'm not saying that they are right - or even that right or wrong are applicable to them, merely that those interpretations exist.

  13. #133
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Najnaj View Post
    Do you live your entire life in agony from tooth ache? No? Then science has given you a happier life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Najnaj View Post
    Maybe you were. I was responding to a statement that philosophy was more responsible for happiness than science.
    Okay but Shaderas point was that philosophy helped him live a "happier better life". Which the point of the thread is simply understanding the limitations of science. For example abolishing slavery also helped people live happier better lives, through an improvement in moral philosophy. Where as some people think that all progress is scientific. Historically that was because empricists wanted a defense against religion, but you can't combat one misconception using another misconception.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Okay but Shaderas point was that philosophy helped him live a "happier better life". Which the point of the thread is simply understanding the limitations of science. For example abolishing slavery also helped people live happier better lives, through an improvement in moral philosophy. Where as some people think that all progress is scientific. Historically that was because empricists wanted a defense against religion, but you can't combat one misconception using another misconception.
    No one thinks that all progress is scientific. That does not mean that we get to ignore the leaps and bounds made for us and our ability to be happy by science. How happy would you really be after your nose fell off from syphilis? You get to not having to see that due to science. How happy could you really be living is serfdom? You get not to do that from philosophy.

    Religion is mostly tinsel in its purest form and a very different topic.

  15. #135
    Science will never explain war.

  16. #136
    as one of my favorite anime scientists once said "if something is perfect, then there is nothing left to learn." i don't think science will ever be finished. i would be willing to bet our race dies out before we understand everything.

  17. #137
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Science will never explain war.
    The explanation for war is that before the ~20th century everyone thought that adjacent tribes were sub-human. Violence is reasonable when you think something is sub-human, it was viewed kind of like killing wild animals.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    The explanation for war is that before the ~20th century everyone thought that adjacent tribes were sub-human. Violence is reasonable when you think something is sub-human, it was viewed kind of like killing wild animals.
    No explanation will ever suffice.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I understand that people use the word that way, it's just a ridiculous usage.

    By that argument, the voices a schizophrenic hears are "true", not hallucinations. All the various conflicting religions of the world are equally "true", even when they directly contradict each other. It's a useless turn of phrase, and ignores what "truth" actually means. It's an attempt to have one's opinion be granted the same consideration as fact.
    A schizophrenic doesn't have the opinion that he hears voices. He hears those voices. In his mind, that is an absolute truth. The fact that the voices are not real does not change that truth for him.

    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2019-05-02 at 09:45 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sicari View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  20. #140
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    A schizophrenic doesn't have the opinion that he hears voices. He hears those voices. In his mind, that is an absolute truth. The fact that the voices are not real does not change that truth for him.
    I agree with you (as did Jung, and other psychologists) but you will not get through to Endus, he is firmly stuck in a one sided view of reality. Objective reality Trumps all for him, and other people that have science as their highest axiom (what Jung would call a God).
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

Posting Permissions

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