Philosophy Discussion Forums

Science helps improve our material well-being by giving us tools, medicines, and methods of operation which lead to more profitable outcomes than we would have had without their use.

The explanation for why things are the way they are, what causes life, and the answer to every other meaningful question about the universe that anyone has ever asked has been left unscathed by science and will remain that way for eternity.

Understanding is not knowing how things interact in the world (A+B=C), it is knowing the the ulimate nature and the underlying function of each A, B, and C and why they interact the way they do.

The question, "Why are there waves in the ocean?" Might by "answered" with the claim: "The gravity of the moon pulls the surface of the ocean up, creating waves.". Most scientists would agree. The problem is that the answer was open ended, the question was about the ultimate reason for waves and the attempt at an answer can be summarized as simply absorbing the ultimate reason into itself. So moon gravity causes waves, well what causes moon gravity that causes waves? Ad infinitum.

For this reason, and others, the possibility of understanding is not a reality.

I think science does not create any prediction, it creates understanding. Of course we can argue on this understanding and can say that it is not complete fact. I also believe that it cannot answer all the questions.

Also when we say 'science' we need to be bit specific because there many modern sciences which are trying to answer some of the questions which are not in realm of classical or Newtonian science for example, chaos theory, quantum theory , M-theory etc. Also predictability and certainty are not trait of such modern science and there may not be A+B=C only, there can be many.

Kansara wrote:I think science does not create any prediction, it creates understanding. Of course we can argue on this understanding and can say that it is not complete fact. I also believe that it cannot answer all the questions.

Also when we say 'science' we need to be bit specific because there many modern sciences which are trying to answer some of the questions which are not in realm of classical or Newtonian science for example, chaos theory, quantum theory , M-theory etc. Also predictability and certainty are not trait of such modern science and there may not be A+B=C only, there can be many.

They have ceased trying to answer questions. They are constantly trying to confirm them. When 1=1 appears to equal 5 we are told it is an indication of the unpredictability of quantum. Newtons world, the world we live in has become not the determined world we all understand it to be but a chaotic unreasoned world. Quantum predicts we can not predict, not that it might be wrong.Like the ancient alchemists in their search for gold they made some amazing discoveries but it took them years to realise their quest was in vain.

Xris wrote: hey have ceased trying to answer questions. They are constantly trying to confirm them. When 1=1 appears to equal 5 we are told it is an indication of the unpredictability of quantum. Newtons world, the world we live in has become not the determined world we all understand it to be but a chaotic unreasoned world. Quantum predicts we can not predict, not that it might be wrong.Like the ancient alchemists in their search for gold they made some amazing discoveries but it took them years to realise their quest was in vain.

Yes I fully agree and that’s why I wrote it cannot answer all the questions. In my view any person who knows science accurately will never claim that science can answer all the questions. Scientism is normally used by atheist to make argument against religion and majority of them are not professionals from science. As Einstein said

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

Science has its own domain and scientists know this but many time it is used to score against religion which has its own domain again. Science is definitely limited and with current knowledge it can never answer why we fall in love, we have emotions? They keep saying that it is all about evaluation but it can never answer why evolution? As

Taylorthephilosopher wrote: it can say how we have waves and gravity but it cannot say why we have such events.

However I also believe that eventually science will connect the dots one day and would surely start quest in different direction.

I think science is more than just predictions (the instrumentalist perspective) as I think the interpretative part is very important as pointed out, surprisingly by the physicist Fuchs:

The usual game of interpretation is that an interpretation is always something you add to the preexisting, universally recognized quantum theory. What has been lost sight of is that physics as a subject of thought is a dynamic interplay between storytelling and equation writing. Neither one stands alone, not even at the end of the day. But which has the more fatherly role? If you ask me, it’s the storytelling. Bryce DeWitt once said, “We use mathematics in physics so that we won’t have to think.” In those cases when we need to think, we have to go back to the plot of the story and ask whether each proposed twist and turn really fits into it. An interpretation is powerful if it gives guidance, and I would say the very best interpretation is the one whose story is so powerful it gives rise to the mathematical formalism itself (the part where nonthinking can take over). The "interpretation" should come first; the mathematics (i.e., the pre-existing, universally recognized thing everyone thought they were talking about before an interpretation) should be secondary.

Interview with a Quantum Bayesian
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2141v1.pdf

Something along the epistemic scientific/structuralist realist approach as argued by Russell/Poincare, etc. seems like a sensible approach to take, in my opinion:

This is the “structuralist” point familiar in the 1920s and 1930s (now severely underappreciated outside the philosophy of science, but reviving). It consists in the observation that the propositions of physics are equations, equations that contain numbers, terms that refer without describing, many other mathematical symbols, and nothing else; and that these equations, being what they are, can only tell us about the abstract or mathematically characterizable structure of matter or the physical world without telling us anything else about the nature of the thing that exemplifies the structure. Even in the case of spacetime, as opposed to matter or force—to the doubtful extent that these three things can be separated—it’s unclear whether we have any knowledge of its intrinsic nature beyond its abstract or mathematically representable structure.

An interesting point whether we can have some knowledge beyond that is the following passage by Lockwood:

Do we therefore have no genuine knowledge of the intrinsic character of the physical world? So it might seem. But, according to the line of thought I am now pursuing, we do, in a very limited way, have access to content in the material world as opposed merely to abstract casual structure, since there is a corner of the physical world that we know, not merely by inference from the deliverances of our five sense, but because we are that corner. It is the bit within our skulls, which we know by introspection. In being aware, for example, of the qualia that seemed so troublesome for the materialist, we glimpse the intrinsic nature of what, concretely, realizes the formal structure that a correct physics would attribute to the matter of our brains. In awareness, we are, so to speak, getting an insider's look at our own brain activity.

I think the OP is largely correct. Predicative power is the real validation of scientific theories - you can have a theory that is self-consistent, and is described with beautiful equations, but if it can't predict how things happen it is useless. There are numerous differing interpretations about the implications of quantum theory, but these debates don't effect the practical application of quantum physics.

It seems to me that science, even at its most theoretical, is basically utilitarian. The power and prestige which science enjoys comes from giving us the ability to manipulate our surroundings, and we can only make these manipulations through making accurate predictions. This goes back to the earliest philosophy of science, where the scientific method is expressed in terms of domination.

This seems to be compatible with the structuralist/realist approach, or at least with the excerpt posted by Bohm2. The scientific method gives us access to those aspects of reality which can be measured (quantified mathematically), predicted and repeated under controlled conditions. There is no reason to assume that this is all of reality, or that these aspects which are amenable to scientific investigation are "more real" than those aspects which are not.

It's mostly science's unsung sister Technology who improves our material well-being. If those scientists had their way they'd just dig deeper and deeper holes under mountains on which they were also building bigger and bigger telescopes trying to understand ultimate questions. Bah!

Personally I'm content with the notion that there's probably no 'ultimate nature and underlying function'. Why would there be? How would we know there was if there's no way of knowing it? Meanwhile science and technology answer more amazing questions than I can take in and keep coming up with new ones.

They do get a bit over-valued though, don't they? The knowledge I've acquired from French kisses, works of art and random acts of kindness over my life have improved my well-being rather more than advances in nano-technology, I feel - except for the invention of stents for arteries, without which I might not be here being annoying.

Taylorthephilosopher wrote:Science helps improve our material well-being by giving us tools, medicines, and methods of operation which lead to more profitable outcomes than we would have had without their use.

The explanation for why things are the way they are, what causes life, and the answer to every other meaningful question about the universe that anyone has ever asked has been left unscathed by science and will remain that way for eternity.

Understanding is not knowing how things interact in the world (A+B=C), it is knowing the the ulimate nature and the underlying function of each A, B, and C and why they interact the way they do.

The question, "Why are there waves in the ocean?" Might by "answered" with the claim: "The gravity of the moon pulls the surface of the ocean up, creating waves.". Most scientists would agree. The problem is that the answer was open ended, the question was about the ultimate reason for waves and the attempt at an answer can be summarized as simply absorbing the ultimate reason into itself. So moon gravity causes waves, well what causes moon gravity that causes waves? Ad infinitum.

For this reason, and others, the possibility of understanding is not a reality.

You seem to have a restrictive view of "understanding". I would suggest that knowing that the tide is caused by the moon's gravity is a much greater state of understanding about the ocean that being ignorant of this fact.

Science will never answer "why" questions if your expectation is teleological. In other words, if your question is "Somehow the oceans were set up to work just like this, what purpose do they serve?", then of course there is not going to be a scientific answer. (I don't think there will be a useful answer from any discipline, but that's just opinion).

Trajectory wrote:You seem to have a restrictive view of "understanding". I would suggest that knowing that the tide is caused by the moon's gravity is a much greater state of understanding about the ocean that being ignorant of this fact.

Science will never answer "why" questions if your expectation is teleological. In other words, if your question is "Somehow the oceans were set up to work just like this, what purpose do they serve?", then of course there is not going to be a scientific answer. (I don't think there will be a useful answer from any discipline, but that's just opinion).

Understanding how gravity moves the tides is fine but when science admits it can see gravity bending space that is a step too far.

Trajectory wrote:You seem to have a restrictive view of "understanding". I would suggest that knowing that the tide is caused by the moon's gravity is a much greater state of understanding about the ocean that being ignorant of this fact.

Science will never answer "why" questions if your expectation is teleological. In other words, if your question is "Somehow the oceans were set up to work just like this, what purpose do they serve?", then of course there is not going to be a scientific answer. (I don't think there will be a useful answer from any discipline, but that's just opinion).

I don’t think he is suggesting to ignore the question at all, if I understand this correctly then he is simply saying that one answer leads to other question. We agree that moon gravity is responsible for tide but we also know that it is not only moon gravity, it is also wind that causes the tide but does that mean that we stop here. How can we say that it the only reason? Why we should not ask that if moon gravity cases the tide why it is doing so?

Kansara wrote: I don’t think he is suggesting to ignore the question at all, if I understand this correctly then he is simply saying that one answer leads to other question. We agree that moon gravity is responsible for tide but we also know that it is not only moon gravity, it is also wind that causes the tide but does that mean that we stop here. How can we say that it the only reason? Why we should not ask that if moon gravity cases the tide why it is doing so?

Understanding is like that, though. It's not a binary on/off thing. Let's say we are a fictional society, observing the seas - they move in some regular pattern, and we don't know why. Someone makes the link between the tide's motion and the phases of the moon. Our understanding has increased - we know they are linked but not how. Someone comes up with the concept of gravity - our understanding has increased again. Someone works out the equations of gravity, and notices that the earth's rotation also factors into it. We can now say why the sea moves the way it does in terms of gravity.

Scientific inquiry can continue on this basis (e.g. what is gravity, what exactly is the moon, how does the moon move, what are the equations of motion for the water in the sea).

What the original post mentions, and what you seem to be describing, are about the "function" and "why" of things. That sounds teleological to me - assuming that there's a purpose for the moon and tides being the way they are, and that the mechanical explanation of how they work is insufficient. I don't think you can say that not knowing these things hinders understanding, because that would assume that the moon and tides do have a purpose (which I don't accept).

Trajectory wrote: What the original post mentions, and what you seem to be describing, are about the "function" and "why" of things. That sounds teleological to me - assuming that there's a purpose for the moon and tides being the way they are, and that the mechanical explanation of how they work is insufficient. I don't think you can say that not knowing these things hinders understanding, because that would assume that the moon and tides do have a purpose (which I don't accept).

I understand and but consider a human being. It has been researched that suicides are affected by moon phase and if we assume that person does suicide with some influence of moon phase. Will not it have some purpose? Does not it change the purpose of life for person who does suicide? If he or she does not suicide may have different purpose of life. Coming back to same example of tide, tide does affect production of some species like turtles so can’t we say tide also has purpose? I don’t think that there is anything in existence which does not have purpose; of course it is just matter of understanding the relation and we may not know all the relations.

Kansara wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I understand and but consider a human being. It has been researched that suicides are affected by moon phase and if we assume that person does suicide with some influence of moon phase. Will not it have some purpose? Does not it change the purpose of life for person who does suicide? If he or she does not suicide may have different purpose of life. Coming back to same example of tide, tide does affect production of some species like turtles so can’t we say tide also has purpose? I don’t think that there is anything in existence which does not have purpose; of course it is just matter of understanding the relation and we may not know all the relations.

I feel you are confusing 'causal relationship' with purpose. We can examine the tidal influence on species production and the lunar influence on suicides without ascribing a 'purpose' to this influence. Purpose implies teleology, a design; we create tools 'for a certain purpose'.

I agree with trajectory that the OP is asking for a form of knowledge and understanding that involves purpose. If that's the question you ask, then you're pretty likely to come up either with despondency, or a supernatural answer.

Diogenes wrote:This seems to be compatible with the structuralist/realist approach, or at least with the excerpt posted by Bohm2. The scientific method gives us access to those aspects of reality which can be measured (quantified mathematically), predicted and repeated under controlled conditions. There is no reason to assume that this is all of reality, or that these aspects which are amenable to scientific investigation are "more real" than those aspects which are not.

This is the important part that separates ontic structural realists from epistemic structural realists. The former (ontic structural realists) argue for a much stronger form of scientific realism. This inevitably leads them to a very mathematical view of nature where mathematics is everything. Tegmark's view of a mathematical universe is the culmination of this view:

I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure.

The Mathematical Universe
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf

The second group (epistemic structural realists) make more modest scientific claims. They argue that we can have knowledge only about the structure of the physical world but not about the "objects" that implement the structure in question. Personally, I just can’t see how something can consist of nothing but mathematical or “relational structure” all the way down to the "bottom" as argued by ontic structural realists. It seems reasonable that there is a bearer of relational properties that isn't exhausted by it's relational properties: so that it must have some intrinsic properties, etc. I mean, don't we already know one obvious example where this breaks down on the macroscale: our own consciousness/qualia as Lockwood argued. I believe Penrose makes the same point here:

(If) the phenomenon of consciousness (or mental experience) can arise only in the presence of some non-computational physical processes in the brain...(then)...one can presume...that such (putative) non-computational processes would also have to be inherent in the action of inanimate matter, since living human brains are ultimately composed of the same material, satisfying the same physical laws, as are the inaminate objects of the universe. We must therefore ask two things. First, why is it that the phenomenon of consciousness appears to occur, as far as we know, only in or relation to brains-although we should not rule out the possibility that consciousness might be present also in other appropriate physical systems? Second, we must ask how could it be that such a seemingly important (putative) ingredient as non-computational behaviour, presumed to be inherent-potentially, at least-in the actions of all material things, so far has entirely escaped the notice of physicists? No doubt the answer to the first question has something to do with the subtle and complex organization of the brain...with regard to the second question, we must indeed expect that vestiges of such non-computability should also be present, at some indiscernible level, in inaminate matter...For physics to be able to accomodate something as foreign to our current physical picture as is the phenomenon of consciousness, we must expect a profound change-one that alters the very underpinnings of our philosophical viewpoint as to the nature of reality.

Taylorthephilosopher wrote: Understanding is not knowing how things interact in the world (A+B=C), it is knowing the the ulimate nature and the underlying function of each A, B, and C and why they interact the way they do.

.

I disagree! How can you know the 'ulimate nature' of anything? And even if you did know how could you possibly know that you know?

Understanding is really about finding patterns/theories/'laws' that alllow for data compression of the original sense data.