What are the Scope and Limits of Science? | Episode 708 | Closer To Truth

How much can science discover? Are there boundaries to science? Are there truths, real truths, beyond science? Featuring interviews with Frank Wilczek, J. Gott, Stephen Wolfram, Bas van Fraassen, and Owen Gingerich.
Season 7, Episode 8 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Science #Philosophy

[@robertjkuklajr3175]

This is the ONLY channel I watch every new episode!! Thank you Dr. Kuhn!!

[@DawnHub666]

Dont u find it cheesey to watch a materialist atheist pretend to search for God.

[@mintakan003]

It's also one of those channels you get an episode almost every day (like my daily inbox). One of the most prolific channels around. Look forward to see what interesting questions comes up.

[@patmoran5339]

@@DawnHub666 Yes, I agree I guess. I do find it interesting that closet believers now try to use "materialism" as a reason for why atheism is the wrong belief set. I guess this ploy helps because they can hide the fact that they are believers from themselves and this makes them more acceptable to the not-in-the-closet types.

[@robertjkuklajr3175]

@@DawnHub666 Lol. It is unlikely he will find his "faith", but i give him much credit for using as many resources and resourceful and knowledgeable people he finds to sort out his thoughts. We all have beleifs, some super strange to others and perfectly normal to the thinker(beleiver). I appreciate all of his efforts to find meaning to life in general. My perspective and any single persons perspective could be as close as an eyelash or as distant as the other end of the universe. Hence, Closer To Truth. I enjoy this program.

[@colinwestcott6471]

People believing in God's created in their own image is much cheesier.

[@ingenuity168]

Thank you Robert Lawrence Kuhn! ❤ Thanks for your inquiring mind and all the work you put into this channel. My life is richer for it.

[@philrobson7976]

As time passes we are always in the middle of discoveries. There’s as much awaiting us in the future as there was in the past. We will never stop learning.

[@seanleith5312]

Of course there are limits in science, almost all human creativities are beyond science: art, music, etc. Also, meaning in life, moral, religion. It's arrogance of human not to see the limits of science.

[@rahulsikdardjrds]

Modern science is based on perceptions of our 5 senses..and that's it's limitations

[@GonzoTehGreat]

Erm, no it isn't and hasn't been for the last hundred years! Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity? Not to mention that even the study of Electromagnetism relies on instruments to make observations...

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@GonzoTehGreat The comment is basically correct. Science is limited to the domain of empirical observations, which are sensory perceptions. It doesn't matter if it's something you see with your eyes or read off of an instrument. To make a measurement is simply to quantify one aspect of sensory experience in terms of another, where the relationship between them is consistent.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

@@Sam-hh3ry No, I don't agree the comment is correct as I disagree that human sensory perception defines the domain of empirical observation because: (1) We use scientific instruments to make observations we can't perceive with our senses (2) We use scientific inference to deduce the presence of things we expect to exist according to theory but which we can't directly observe (such as Black Holes) The five senses are sight, sound, touch, taste and smell. There are many physical phenomena which we can measure/observe without using any of these.

[@rahulsikdardjrds]

@@GonzoTehGreat quantum mechanics general relativity electro magnetism all things in the physical world are observable by our senses. that includes you observing and comprihending it in your mind isn't it. Hence yes it bounded by our senses (understanding it in our mind is part of our senses it's not something separate or alien now is it) Put it simply u r saying we use instruments , yes offcourse we do but then those readings on the instrument is understood only through our senses to us

[@GonzoTehGreat]

@@rahulsikdardjrds Looking at numbers on a computer screen or on display isn't the same as observing something directly with our senses. Also, none of the modern physics mentioned in these comments is "limited" by human senses.

[@kitchric]

Thanks for the mental stimulation. Keep up the good work, Sir.

[@leptyga]

Can't wait for Iain McGilchrist's new book! His take on this is probably my favorite.

[@franksalo3466]

It's interesting to see some theories that have been considered metaphysical becoming more mainstream. Maybe the hippies weren't totally wrong.

[@ThatisnotHair]

Metaphysical theories can become scientific if it can make correct surprising precise predictions. Infact science is an extension of philosophy.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

"Truth on the other hand is a broader, deeper reality. There are aspects of truth that science cannot address." I agree with Robert.

[@patmoran5339]

Can you think of an example of a broader, deeper reality aspect of truth that science cannot address?

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@patmoran5339 Well... that's an excellent question but I was just quoting Robert Kuhn at the end of the episode. Now that you ask that question, I need to think about it.... Hahaha.. Maybe, since Robert Kuhn made that statement, we should ask him? But since I agreed with him, I should be able to give you examples. How about "consciousness" or "What is the purpose of mankind?" or even "god." These examples, I think, are some aspects of "truth" that science will probably never be able to address. What do you think?

[@patmoran5339]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 My point is that I think that even moral and political philosophy can be be addressed by science. But this will not likely happen until psychology becomes a science of the mind.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

If science cannot address it, what else can?

[@patmoran5339]

@@ferdinandkraft857 Improved moral and political philosophies are possible but not with the current model of psychology. Psychology must be a science of the mind, not a science of behavior.

[@pebblebeach8517]

My favorite channel i am hooked.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@keramatebrahimi943]

As long as we ask questions,there shall be the answers.

[@richardnelson4112]

And most of the answers will be, there's no way to know

[@drock7333]

Science is limited to that which is empirical and objective.

[@LeventeCzelnai]

But u can't know that they are the same.

[@patmoran5339]

Empiricism has multiple flaws but the use of justification might be the worst. This flaw is especially likely to lead scientists astray when "observations by the senses" is used as a standard. Empiricism is centered on prediction. Realism is centered on explanation.

[@hajorm.a3474]

We thought that human behavior was subjective but go to your feed and see how an AI can manipulate that behavior.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@patmoran5339 How does realism differ from empiricism?

[@patmoran5339]

@@ferdinandkraft857 Empiricism assumes that we get accurate information directly from the sense organs. Realism holds that reality affects the senses but all of our information is indirect and fallible. Realism also holds that all observation is theory-laden.

[@2010sunshine]

Excellent insight👍👌

[@johnnypanrike8505]

Please do a supplement to this episode where you ask Dean Radin to discuss the sociological aspects of the practice of science.

[@patmoran5339]

We are unusually close to the very beginning of science and we will always be very close to the beginning.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Studying philosophy is not a waste of time. Physics needs good philosophy to progress.

[@shiddy.]

4:33 this was awesome

[@shashikamanoj1160]

Read "Limits of science" by Peter Medwar, noble prize laureate biologist

[@danielosetromera2090]

Dr. Kuhn, please interview Dr. Edward Feser. He's a leading thomist philosopher that has done great work in this subject. I'm convinced he can help you with this question a great deal.

[@marctrottier3732]

...the most satisfying docs...in our universe, at least...

[@davidjayhalabecki438]

The scope of science could be simple curiosity, the hunger for harmony. The limits of science could only be exhausted by experience. Knowledge without experience only amounts to more curiosity. Knowledge with experience is wisdom.

[@gr33nDestiny]

Yeah I think future machinery will be biology based too, like tractors using muscles instead of pneumonic actuations

[@leomdk939]

I agree with Dr Kuhn's opinion, "Go ahead, Frank -- and all future Franks -- go for it all. Try to explain everything ... then we'll see if everything can be explained ... by science." I suspect the answer is 'no, science can't explain everything', but we should definitely try as hard as we can first and forever. I suspect there are questions that are beyond our consciousness to even know to ask, but who knows -- perhaps by probing we can, in great time, expand our consciousness enough to learn to ask the question we don't yet even realize ARE questions. I'm willing to bet that the Cro Magnum and Neanderthals did not question where consciousness came from, rather they just accepted it much the way a 3 year old does not question where he came from. We should always try to push the limits of what we can learn, _because doing so may be the very thing that pushes the limits of what we can learn_ .

[@mikedziuba8617]

Science is limited by the current scientific theories, ideas, mathematics, and instruments. Which means that the limits of science are expanding, and their expansion is accelerating. That's why science was a lot more limited a couple hundred years ago, than it is today. And the limits of science will probably be much further out in the future, than they are today. Expanding limits aren't true limits. Because it's just a matter of time before they will encompass everything we know. And even then the limits of science won't stop expanding. Because science adds to knowledge, and knowledge adds to science. It's a positive feedback loop that feeds upon itself in a runaway inflation. But this runaway inflation of science's limits can be stopped by untestable and unfalsifiable theories and ideas. Such theories and ideas are like walls and barriers that stop any further expansion of science. Because the expansion of science's limits works by determining which ideas and theories are true, which are false, and then moving on to new ideas and theories. When a theory is inherently untestable and unfalsifiable, then it's not possible to know whether this theory is true or false. So, it becomes a hard limit of science that can't expand any further. The only way science can move beyond such fixed limits is to say that such ideas don't belong in science and throw them away. The runaway inflation of science's limits has no natural end, and in theory it can continue forever. But this inflation can be poisoned and ended with inherently untestable and unfalsifiable theories and ideas.

[@luizfelipevenosa8876]

Perfect!

[@leomdk939]

6:21 "It's easy to imagine no universe at all" ... actually, Sir, you just named the *hardest* thing to imagine.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Science provides information not knowledge. Knowledge is deeper than information.

[@nightoftheworld]

17:53 *empirical science AND metaphysics* “The scientific realist says, _we have an explanation of the success of science in terms of reference and truth_ -it’s not a scientific explanation, it’s a metaphysical explanation. You see they step outside of science and for an empiricist that’s not the thing to do.” Empirical science does not exhaust Truth.

[@mikejones-vd3fg]

There still room for hocus pocus, because by definition science depends on time, cause and effect, so if time had a beginning which we think it does, then the initial cause which happened before time is out of the bounds of science. Its like expecting to the rewind button on the VCR to take you back the filming of the movie. It just wont do that, so there's always room to speculate how the movie was made and no one could prove you wrong, hence philosophy and religion, but you need a good story at least, or in the case of philosophy some good logic. But maybe eventually we could actually find out by peering into higher dimensions , there could live the initial cause and give us more clues to how it all began. Or maybe looking back to the beginning is just too far for now, maybe we should figure out what the universe is first before speculating why or how it started. But yeah i believe science has no bounds and eventually will produce us God's name.

[@ZeroOskul]

2:24 A Gravity Wave IS NOT a Gravitational Wave. Frank Wilczek should know the difference. A Gravitational Wave is the residual warping of space caused by all bodies in space but so minute that we can only observe them from massive collisions as from Black Holes and Neuton Stars. A Gravity Wave is a cloud formation: structures on the ground effecting the structure of the atmosphere above which is observable in certain repeating cloud formations which are called Gravity Waves.

[@richardnelson4112]

The problem with science is that it assumes that the process it uses to get answers automatically produces results that can be understood and that they are the correct ones. If all future answers rest on the preceeding answers and the original answer is the wrong answer, everything that comes afterwards has no choice but to be wrong as well. A good example of this, is the theory of " the big bang" that they say was responsible for the creation of the universe. In this theory they say that space and time themselves were created by this big bang. Well that's total nonsense ! It says that all the matter and energy that exists today was in this singularity. Well if that was the case, then that implies that it had no place to exist since there was NO SPACE where it could exist, and NO TIME when it could have existed since there was no WHEN it could have existed. Furthermore, the idea of a singularity makes no sense at all. Anything that could reach this state, would have no choice but to go out of existence, since the process of getting smaller and smaller would have to be a process that would have no stopping point, making it impossible to then reverse the process into the opposite direction, which would be expansion and inflation ! This conclusion was reached based on the logic that if the universe is expanding that it all had to originate from a common central location that they call a "singularity". It's a desperate attempt to try to explain what they have no idea of what they are trying to explain. Here is another example. The law of conservation states that in a closed system, no thing can be added or destroyed within that system. The only thing that can be done is change its form, as in E=MC2, but the total amount of matter/energy must remain constant. Well then they come up with what they call virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and it has to be assumed that when they use the word existence that they are talking about THIS universe. Well then the law of conservation is according to them is continuously being violated and therefore, there is no law of conservation ! I can go on and on, but what I am illustrating here is that they continuously are contradicting EVERYTHING they are claiming is and also what they claim to know

[@yianicassini154]

The only thing that science needs is time , give it enough time to get the answer for everything

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

The scope of science looks to be physical limited by measurement.

[@janhoogendijk8604]

No limits to Science if it can solve the greed problem of the human kind.

[@patmoran5339]

I believe that the problem of the surplus can also be addressed by improved moral and political philosophies and sciences.

[@DownwiththeTowerexJW]

aLL tHIS, ANd itS frEe!

[@art-of-techno]

Science tries to understand what our senses and technologies can detect so it can manipulate these things and be able to have predictability. Everything else is either fantasy from our imagination or wishful thinking. This is not bad, it can inspire science like science can inspire Art but don't mix them up, science is closer to truth.

[@chrisbennett6260]

Which your not separate or apart from duh

[@radicaledwards3449]

So by that logic, all unknowns are not science...

[@kmonsense8716]

Frankly speaking, science is not limited because science is a tool to investigate nature. As Emmanuel Kant said, science is organized knowledge. Science provides rational explanations for circumfluent phenomena. With such a definition, science has no limits unless we make it a cult like religion

[@uthman2281]

What do you mean by science?

[@user-nh7nb8pr3f]

They talk about replacing science. What if they have to replace math, which is ‘=‘ dominant.

[@richardnelson4112]

Another thing they claim is that space is NOT NOTHING, and that it is filled with alot of STUFF, lol 🤭. But what they FORGOT to mention is how space is not nothing compared to what NOTHING actually is ! There are situations that require that the 2 things being compared have to be well defined in order to be able to come to an answer that makes any sense. Fluctuations in themselves mean nothing at all since it is an action performed on something that exists and so does not exist IF there is nothing there to fluctuate. What they are trying to tell you, is that NON EXISTENCE itself fluctuates. LOL .. Of course you would have to also believe that fields of ANYTHING are made of NOTHING, and that fields of nothing are fluctuations of WHAT ! WOW, all of this is really really amazing !! Now you can all believe that science has delivered you the ultimate answers to some of the greatest/hardest questions that have illuded the human race since the time of the Flintstones !

[@cvsree]

He says old Greek ideas like it's inferior to science. He sounds like Trump 😅 "The search for a permanent material substratum is illusory" -Parmenides

[@johnyharris]

Truth according to Religion: God/consciousness did it and that's all there is to it, so please do not ask what or who did God/consciousness. Have a nice day!

[@jameszmuda6362]

At around 19:16 Dr Kuhn seems to trip up in his summation of Bas van Fraassen’s view point and how it contrasts with Scientific Realism. Dr Kuhn seems to be saying he prefers Scientific Realism over Bas more nuanced understanding of Science. Dr Kuhn seems not to appreciate the contrast which Bas is stressing. Bas is not saying Science cannot establish truths. But he is just drawing a limit to the KINDS of truths which Science can establish. Namely only truths about what is observable. Hasn’t Bas therefore answered the very question posed in the the episode title? To understand the “scope and limits of science”? I feel Bas argument is compelling and convincing. His viewpoint can help us understand where our practicing Scientists of today are failing to practice REAL Science. But have rather wandered into Meta-physics. (E.G., String Theory with its untestable hypothesis, and theories which appeal to “the Multiverse” without any possibility of being empirically observed.) I appreciate the clarity of Bas view of the limits of what Science can tell us.

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

The bottom line is that scientific inquiry is really all we have. If you have a question that cannot be answered by science, then you have a question that cannot be answered. It's basically that simple.

[@LeventeCzelnai]

but what do u do, when answers are needed but we don't have certainty at the required level ?

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

@@LeventeCzelnai You do whatever you do when you can't get an answer. That's all you can do. What else could you do? Pretend to have an answer that has no certainty at all? What good is that going to do you?

[@LeventeCzelnai]

@@Mystic0Dreamer well, there should be differences in the quality of answers for philosophical questions based on logic' , after all we don't want to simply speculate in the air . but yes, we will come up with answers if they are needed, that is what a brave thinker does.

[@LeventeCzelnai]

@@Mystic0Dreamer having no certainty and having no certainty at the level science can answer the material universe 's questions, are 2 different things.

[@LeventeCzelnai]

@@Mystic0Dreamer u can do whatever u want and write and talk bullshits of a scientific and objective morality as Sam Harris does.

[@dougg1075]

What if we biological life forms are the self assembling creations of some non biological entities/machines. What if we are a form of ultra high technology created by something totally different.

[@mikel4879]

There are no reasonable limits of the so-called "Science". It can advance 'almost' unlimited. The final 'scope' shouldn't be other than the brain's neverending curiosity ( of any 'brain'-like structure, either 'biological' or pure artificial ).

[@krzysztofciuba271]

kids,study at first the introduction to methodology an logic like A.Tarski's Introduction..,AD1935. Don't beat the bush.You use terms like 'truth" and you do not understand it;you don't know even the subject matter of formal science and natural science like physics

[@torbjrnsivertstl3548]

We find nature philosophy in the Bible long before the ancient Greek philosophers, written in poetry and regarded as a part of the wisdom. It is said that king Salomo knew a lot about nature, else it is not said much about it. We find little mathematics for practical use, in trade and in building. In trade they were told to use right measurements. It was used when building the temple. In this way we can say it gets a philosophical point. It is a symbol of the body, it is a temple for the Holy Spirit. In the new covenant we get the Holy Spirit by faith in Jesus, just because of mercy, for free, not because of anything we have done or can do, but just because Jesus died instead of us. It can’t be measured, so it can’t be used for trade. It also has the meaning that it is infinit. Jeremia prophesied about this in Jer.31 by natural philosophy, talking about ocean waves and light and claiming that the foundation of the earth down there and the heavens up there can not be examined. Light is waves also and it may remind me of the wavefunction too, yes, there is “something deeply hidden”. Now it has been examined quite a lot. But we are limited and so are our examinations. But the Holy Spirit is not limited. The Apostel Paul said that the Holy Spirit investigates everything, even the depths in God (2.Chor.2,12). Well, then it also investigates the world too and that need not be in conflict with science. But it also reveals Jesus for us, so that he makes God known to us and this is of great value to us and so it is for the world.

[@patmoran5339]

I guess I am confused. Was the the Bible written before the ancient Greek Philosophers?

[@torbjrnsivertstl3548]

@@patmoran5339 Much of it. Abraham lived 1800 years BC. By king David and king Salomo Israel was at the top of their power, including the land all the way to Euphrat, this was 1000-900 BC. The prophet Jeremia lived 625-587 BC. He said to them that they had fallen away from God, "the spring of living water". Nebukadnesar, the king of Babylon will invade their country and it is by God's will, so they better give up and let him take over. So it happend. And Thales, the first greek natur philosopher lived about 585 BC. He said "everthing is water". It is a strange saying, meaning that there is a rationality behind the visible natur.

[@patmoran5339]

@@torbjrnsivertstl3548 I did not know that. Thanks.

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Depends what do you want to know about the science.

[@patmoran5339]

Unless and until psychology can escape the parochial and often irrelevant study of "behavior" to address the real science of mind it will be appropriately considered as pseudo science or superstition.

[@dismalthoughts]

"If science can't know it, it's not worth knowing" Tell that to Renee Descartes. The only absolute certainty in life is the existence of your own consciousness, and yet the fundamental nature of the subjective conscious experience is hitherto unexplainable by science. I guess the fundamental nature of "you" isn't worth knowing.

[@gr33nDestiny]

He thinks music and culture can’t be mapped mathematically... 😂 a computer can’t do Mozart 😂 I think a computer with the right program could predict his next unwritten song with great accuracy but it would have to know Beethoven too for instance

[@hajorm.a3474]

I agree.

[@magicsinglez]

I don’t think these people understand the question (or they don’t know the answer). At least they don’t view the question the way I do. I understand it to be what are the limits of science. Will we be able to construct the human genome in ways completely unrelated to its origination, completely make up people however we would want the, to be, so humans can easily live in space. Will we be able to construct or bio-engineer materials stronger and stronger until we can easily, for example, pilot a automobile sized vehicle into the corona of the sun, and keep it there, free of harm. Will we be able to populate the moon, and then, pilot it off into deep space, without causing harm to either the Earth or the moon.

[@bruceylwang]

Science has no limit because our curiosity and imagination has no boundary. The only limit for science is that we need money to play science. Science has no limit because we love to conquer. Btw, is science just another form of religion?

[@patmoran5339]

In genuine science no "authority" is recognized and there is no "ultimate" truth. Genuine science proceeds through creative conjecture, criticism, argument, error elimination, problem solving and the discovery of new problems.

[@bruceylwang]

@@patmoran5339 Perhaps, science is trying to find the "ultimate" truth by different approach with different belief of "authority".

[@torbjrnsivertstl3548]

I am a very logically reasoning person, you see. Aristoteles is said to be the father of logics, but he did the mistake that he used it on visible things instead of ideas. Christian-platonisme was dominant 300-1200 ac, then came a synthesis of Christianity and Aristotelisme and became the philosophy of the catholic church. It was this that came in conflict with the emerging modern science. A similarly wrong logics we find in the dialectics in the philosophical direction Kant - Hegel - Marx …. But it violates mathematical logics and that is what is used in real sciences. This wrong method resulted in the Lysenko blunder in the Soviet Union under Stalin. It was said to be science, but was not. Nowadays it seems like there is a lot of political and religious interest in claiming something to be scientific, even real science, with similar methods, but it is not, because it is not with real scientific methods. On the contrary they draw conclusions that contradict real science. It turn out to be more like a new religion. They claim it to be science, but it is neither science, nor Christianity.

[@kallianpublico7517]

The scope and limit of science is the scope and limit of the scientist. Human beings. A computer is not an evolving, living human being connected to nature. The linguistic mind of human beings can be replicated by a computer, but the human mind, and being, is more than the linguistic mind.

[@patmoran5339]

From an earlier thread, I asked you the following. Please answer. I ask you directly then, Can you name any knowledge that has been produced by any religion?

[@florincoter1988]

@@patmoran5339 No! Religion does not produce anything. It is an idea, a rite. Rites do not produce.

[@chrisbennett6260]

Is science value free value neutral I beg to differ .as for bringing us closer to truth .scientific racism .the human zoos tells a different picture

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

There is basically two sides of Life, the 'Life-Side', and the 'Stuff-Side'. So, We might say that there is mainly two sides of Science. The Stuff-side-researchers is limited by their physical senses, and technical extensions, and had Never seen them self. The first real Scientist in modern time was Walter Russell, he were awake in his Life-side, and explained the Stuff-side in a Eternal Perspective. But none of the scientists at that time including Einstein, and many others, were able to understand it. Well, the Science of the Eternal Life, is the Science of all and any sciences, so it is mainly a question of experience and development.

[@Ascendlocal]

Sciences is the only discipline that progresses.even the teeth of religion.. Grow up.wish thinkers !!

[@rjgood1]

Where does common sense and intuition fit in? These are the tools give to us by evolution to cope with the real world. They are not scientifically accurate but they are still useful, particularly in survival situations. We are forced many times to make decisions or judgements based on incomplete information. Suppose we analyze common sense and intuition and find out that our conclusions are right more often than not? Should we apply these same tools to scientific questions where it is impossible to use a strict scientific method? If the answer is no aren't we giving up possible avenues of arriving at the truth?

[@tedgrant2]

Science is limited by the practicalities of investigation. Examples... This afternoon, we cannot look in the underwear drawers of aliens on Alpha Centauri. We cannot see God's face, but he might let you examine his back parts ((Exodus 33:23)

[@patmoran5339]

What are all those "useful ideas" produced by religions?

[@kallianpublico7517]

If you can't give any examples then you reveal your "intentions", your "wisdom".

[@patmoran5339]

@@kallianpublico7517 So what are some examples of useful ideas produced by religions?

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@patmoran5339 Playing dumb? Or just being yourself?

[@patmoran5339]

@@kallianpublico7517 I asked the question. I don’t know of any useful ideas produced by religion. Do you?

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@patmoran5339 You know people can see your posts right? They can see what you don't know.

[@patmoran5339]

Science is not value free.

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

@ 0:55 Kuhn says, "Some say, if Science can't know it, it's not worth knowing". That is actually a very poor perspective on things. It's not that if science can't know it it's not worth knowing but rather, if science can't know it then it's unknowable. Period. Whether it's worth knowing or not is irrelevant.

[@occultninja4]

Well there is an extra step to that. Think about this, how do you know something to be scientifically true? You know when you can use it,. demonstrate it, do something with it, etc. There has to be some sort of effect that the scientific knowledge predicts, and thus, some 'use' for it in some sense, even if in eventuality. You could say that the very act of knowing something is dependent on your ability to demonstrate and use that knowledge (AKA an experiment). If something cannot be known to science, it implicitly means that there is no way to test it, verify it, or show that there is merit to believing it vs something else. In other words, that it's functions useless UNTIL there comes a way to gain some sort of benefit from knowing it or, AKA, a way to test it. This is what he means I believe. If something cannot be tested or verified, it can't be used or applied to anything (because that use or application would act as an experiment and then turn that thing into a scientific belief). In other words, then idea would be effectively worthless because you can't do anything with it because anything you could do with it could act as an experiment to test it and then incorporate it into science. Try to name something that is useful, but it's use, mechanism, origin, nature and or purpose cannot be explained or grasped by science in principle (as in it's impossible, not even a matter of needing better technology)? If you say God, we're gonna have some issues xD Because for 1, you supposedly cannot prove God and God doesn't actually do anything, and 2, evolutionary psychology would like to have a word with you. So preferably something other than God, but is there even anything other than God? But I guess there's the problem. We don't know what we don't know yet.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Knowing is derived from the linguistic mind. You don't "know" how to ride a bike or walk like you "know" what the solution to 1 + 0 is. There is more to human beings and consciousness than the linguistic mind.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Are you implying that if something is unknowable through science, it can't possibly be known ( even partly ) through a different discipline such as philosophy, history, etc?

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Yes, I am. And keep in mind here that you need to be very careful in what you are calling "philosophy". If you are using any logic and reasoning that begin with (or use) known observed facts of reality then chances are that you are actually doing science without even realizing it. After all, science is nothing more than "Natural Philosophy", meaning that is a method of inquiry that uses observations of the natural world to arrive at conclusions. So if you are using natural observations to arrive at your conclusions, then you are doing science whether you realize it or not. By the way, you mentioned "history" as part of your source of knowledge of facts. The problem with this is that by doing that your conclusions can never be any more dependable than the history you are using. So if you are going down that road you need to be absolutely certain that the historical events you have read about in some ancient texts actually represent truth, and not superstitious claims that cannot be verified. It's already been demonstrated beyond any doubt that pure philosophy cannot be used to obtain truth. We know this because we can imagine a static universe that has always existed. One that is not expanding. So if we went by that we would believe false things about our real world. Only through observation (i.e. the scientific method) have we discovered the true nature of the world in which we live. So science has proven it's validity and pure philosophy has proven it's uselessness in trying to discern reality. Consider Christian theology. If you're going to treat the New Testament as verified and dependable history, then what you are attempting to do is "science". In other words, you are attempting to answer questions based on what you consider to be "dependable observations" of the real world. The problem with this is that those stories are highly questionable and more than likely superstitious folklore, or even outright religious political propaganda created for the purpose of creating a religion. The vast majority of both scientists and historians would reject the idea of using the New Testament as a dependable historical account of the events described in those texts. So in the end, all you are doing is "science" with the exception that you are using unverifiable and unreliable data as your "observations". In short, you'd be doing really bad science that isn't very credible.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@Mystic0Dreamer Again your comments are making me think ( and making me think how badly I understand science too ). Anyhow... regarding philosophy, I was thinking as you. Maybe philosophy is really part of science. And yes, now that you mention it, I do recall reading that science was considered "natural philosophy". Is it still ? Yes.. I catch your drift regarding history. How can anything historical be observed or even proven? We have to rely on other people's observations, right? And then, were their observations correct or just make-believe assumptions that they had? ( I'm specifically referring here to the New Testament, as you also did ). I think some history can be reliable but how can we say they are "observations?" No matter how much we study a historical document, we still can't observe the scribe who wrote it down and ask him to explain his story. So do you think anything "immaterial" that cannot be "observed" is off limits or just "bad science"?

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

There’s no limits on science.

[@leaturk11]

I hope your right, but the multiverse is a bit of a challenge.

[@amadubah8931]

There are plenty of limits to science especially when it comes to the metaphysical realm. We have to remember that it’s not the job of science to bring about absolute certainty, but rather higher probabilities which can go through a paradigm shift sometime in the future.

[@LeventeCzelnai]

lol, no

[@jeffamos9854]

@@amadubah8931 . Really does it matter if metaphysics asks a question. So what if metaphysics asked a question.

[@DawnHub666]

Men have limits.

[@monoman4083]

god is the science

[@rahulsikdardjrds]

Watch Sadhguru you might get a lot of answers to your questions