Thanks to the evidence of things like quantum mechanics causality can be considered to be derived from the acausal and a sort of nonsensical "synergistic-normalization" applies to everything. What that means is science can adopt Functionalist approaches that extend its reach by examining what we do not and cannot know for more of what we can know on the assumption that yin-yang dynamics are demonstrable which should even be something that statistics can eventually establish as an empirical fact. In other words, even what is meaningful and meaningless can be subject to scientific scrutiny and, for example, it is now possible to earn your degree in comedy because the first theory of humor has already established that what we consider funny is low in entropy.

Your entire proposition depends upon the validity of your interpretation of the observations of quantum mechanics.

You have yet to witness the new discoveries that will arise.

When "causal" mechanisms are observed for those processes we do not yet understand, you will once again be trapped by the truth of metaphysics.

I do not mean to be offensive. But long ago we did not understand the mechanics that precede lightning bolts. You very may well go back to the stone age and tell the people that lightening is "acausal" simply because they have not yet advanced in their observations.

What scientists claim to know now, they will repudiate in the future upon new discoveries.

The essential nature of science will never change.

You can keep kicking the can down the road further. But that road leads no where.

Quantum mechanics are by all observations random, meaning, they cannot be defined and can just as easily be described as acausal. These are merely labels and if you want to insist that quantum mechanics describes bullshit its just as valid as far as I'm concerned because words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts. Just because zero, for example, is not a real number and is treated differently with division by zero being considered nonsense doesn't mean we cannot use zero in our mathematics or that zero is an unscientific concept. Actually, the Chinese were originally reluctant to adopt the use of zero in their mathematics for exactly that reason considering it merely a joke with the symbol for zero essentially translating as "Everything I say is a joke!" The only evidence required for the use of the concept of the acausal in science is statistical and, since Bell's Theorem, there is a mountain of evidence to support its use.

Of course, academics are so filled with hubris that they resist the idea and find nothing humorous about their work. That's a cultural problem that, of course, they will investigate thoroughly all in good time now that the first quantifiable theory of humor has established that it revolves around anything low entropy.

Science, by its very definition, is radically limited in its scope of authority.

Science can only report observations, but can never assume to know anything about when, what, where, and why. . . . The things of meaning in the life are outside the realm of science. — taylordonbarrett

So you find the authority of science offensive. Should we care about that?

Science can only report observations, but can never assume to know anything about when, what, where, and why. — taylordonbarrett

This is patently false. Science is not just observation, otherwise it would never have gotten off the ground. Science is a systematic method of obtaining data and forming a model or theory that best represents this data, which includes these circumstantial questions.

Science is educated guess work — taylordonbarrett

I have to agree. In the circumstances, it's doing a brilliant job. How else could we be here, on the Internet, talking to each other? Living our lives of comfort and banality? Unless some of those guesses turn out 100% right, too?

You sound like you're arguing for some better basis for public knowledge than 'educated guesswork'. How would that go? I'm thinking it's the best we've got.

You sound like you're arguing for some better basis for public knowledge than 'educated guesswork'. How would that go? I'm thinking it's the best we've got. — mcdoodle

Good point.

I agree that science is based on empirical derivation of what can be observed and interpreted from a phenomenon, making it a logical fallacy to believe them to be indisputable truths of the world. Nonetheless, like you said this "empirical derivation" makes good sense, and it works. Not only does it work by itself, but works across many other scientific disciplines and works well. This is true since almost all technological advancement is based on science, and we can actually use them with confidence most of the time. We put faith in what we discover because it works.


So do you suggest you have a better non-fallacious basis that works better? Why would anyone ever come up with questions like "meaning of life" without empirical basis? Science or not, it does not make a difference that we can only come up with questions that are based on what we can experience and interpret from it. Arguments like existence of God is still based on experience because the concept arises from the fact that most of what we experience seemingly have a beginning and our attempt to explain this.

The limits of science are the limits of the human mind on a good day.

The limits of stupidity, dysfunction, and ignorance, on the other hand, are the boundaries we push the rest of the time.

Science is educated guess work. And as valuable as it may be when applied to engineering (medical and mechanical), no human being should ever place their faith in it. — taylordonbarrett

You seem to be asserting scientific instrumentalism so on that view it wouldn't make sense to call science educated guesswork because a guess is the type of thing which is either true or false.

Or you might be saying that, "because all/most of our previous scientific theories have turned out to be false, repeatedly, we are not justified in believing our present ones to be true". ?

Science can only report observations, but can never assume to know anything about when, what, where, and why. — taylordonbarrett

CAUSATION is entirely outside the realm of science. — taylordonbarrett

I'd agree that there's a limit to science, but I don't agree with either of the statements from you that I quoted.

Its limitations are rather things like the fact that it has to employ a third-person perspective, it assumes uniformity/replicability, so that unusual one off events are difficult if not impossible to address scientifically, and so on.

Science like religion requires a great deal of faith.

It requires certain assumptions and confidences, but it would be wrong to equivocate this form of belief with religious faith.

So do you suggest you have a better non-fallacious basis that works better? — FLUX23

Yes we do. For details see "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper.

The limits of science aren't due to the limits of the process itself, but due to the limits of our own senses and ability to reason in a consistent way. Philosophy is at the mercy of these same limitations because philosophy and science are one and the same. A conclusion from one domain of investigation cannot contradict the conclusion from another. All knowledge must be integrated. Science/philosophy is simply organized knowledge and all knowledge is composed of sensory impressions. We can only think and talk about the world in sensory symbols (language is simply sounds and visual symbols).

Philosophy is at the mercy of these same limitations because philosophy and science are one and the same. — Harry Hindu

I sure don't agree with that, and I doubt many others would, either.

That is, unless it's still the first half of the 1500s or earlier.

<checks calendar to make sure>

I sure don't agree with that, and I doubt many others would, either.

That is, unless it's still the first half of the 1500s or earlier.

<checks calendar to make sure> — Terrapin Station

Whether many others agree is irrelevant. That is simply pleading to the majority and we all know that the majority of people who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe were just wrong, and to prove them all wrong took making an observation that no one else ever made (like traveling to the other side of the world and going out in space and observing all the stuff). If you have something to point to show that I'm in error, other than "I and many others wouldn't agree with that", then do so. Why don't you agree?

Whether many others agree is irrelevant. That is simply pleading to the majority — Harry Hindu

Apparently you misread my comment as implying that you're mistaken because others and I disagree. I said nothing like that.

Apparently you misread my comment as implying that you're mistaken because others and I disagree. I said nothing like that. — Terrapin Station

Then you were wasting your time telling me something I already know - that others disagree. Great post. :-\

Apparently, I'm not going to receive a reason why you don't agree.

There was an allusion to why I disagree in the rest of the comment. Why did I mention the date (range) that I did?

Aside from that, by the way, my aim in participating in message boards like this is to have a friendly, casual conversation with people who have an interest in academic philosophy, because I have a background in that milieu and my interest in it has never waned, but it's been decades since I've regularly interacted with many people who have such an interest. In a friendly conversational setting, I say things like "I don't agree with that" and so on.

Of course, my aim is often frustrated because most folks just seem to want to attend Monty Python's Argument Clinic, but I'm an "irrational optimist" with an incredible amount of patience and persistence, so I keep trying. ;-)

The limits of science aren't due to the limits of the process itself, but due to the limits of our own senses and ability to reason in a consistent way — Harry Hindu

So, you claim that the method of science does not impose any limits, but rather it is human frailty that does.

Why not employ tools to help us, such as paper, pencils, universities, computers?

Did the big bang make any sound?

The ultimate limit of science would be truth, the absolute. Science will one day join hands spiritually and philosophically with just is, unity at last.

Did the big bang make any sound? — MJA

The spirit hovered over the silent night of the deep and the moment of creation was not remarked in light or sound. Neither did light appear on the first day, nor in the first year. Not in the first century, even. 400 millennia passed before light illuminated the cosmos.

There was an allusion to why I disagree in the rest of the comment. Why did I mention the date (range) that I did? — Terrapin Station

So you're saying that my statement is outdated? You've gone from pleading to the majority to the genetic fallacy. When someone on these forums mentions quotes from Plato, Socrates, or 16th century philosophers, do you have to check your calendar?

Aside from that, by the way, my aim in participating in message boards like this is to have a friendly, casual conversation with people who have an interest in academic philosophy, because I have a background in that milieu and my interest in it has never waned, but it's been decades since I've regularly interacted with many people who have such an interest. In a friendly conversational setting, I say things like "I don't agree with that" and so on.

Of course, my aim is often frustrated because most folks just seem to want to attend Monty Python's Argument Clinic, but I'm an "irrational optimist" with an incredible amount of patience and persistence, so I keep trying. ;-) — Terrapin Station

I'm simply trying to get you to explain why you disagree.

So you're saying that my statement is outdated? You've gone from pleading to the majority to the genetic fallacy. — Harry Hindu

I'm not doing either. What happened in the 16th century that has some importance in the history of science?

I'm not doing either. What happened in the 16th century that has some importance in the history of science? — Terrapin Station

Really? You're answering a question with a question? Why is it so difficult for you to back up your position of disagreement? The conversation can continue when you clarify your position. If you don't then that shows that you aren't interested.

I'm interesting in you thinking about particular things. That's my aim. I don't expect to be able to achieve my aim, because I've been interacting with people in contexts like this online for over a couple decades now, but nevertheless, I give it a shot. I have a lot of patience and persistence, aided by being an "irrational optimist."

No you're not. If you really were interested in that, then you'd explain yourself more clearly.

Nope. That wouldn't achieve what I'm interested in. Again, it's not as if I'm unexperienced at this. Also, it should be obvious--if part of what I'm trying to do is to get you to think through something on your own, holding you by the hand and babying you through it woudln't work.

The book is too long to read for a little given time I have.

Do you have some short summary of what this new method is?