The Limits of Science

[skakos]

The problems with the DNA and the wrong arguments used in this thread are:

1. No one is talking about fairies or dragons or teapots. When someone speaks of "this must have a designer" it does not mean that he makes any claim regarding the traits of that designer. So don't invent strawman arguments out of nowhere.

2. Tornadoes and snow flakes have shapes. So do rocks. So do computers (which ARE designed) and DNA. But it is purely a sophistical trick to use the examples of tornadoes and snow flakes so as to refute the arguments if favor of DNA design. They are not the same things. Stick to the point and we will find a way.

3. DNA has a structure which ENCODES information. And it has evolved into encoding MORE information over thousands of years. And these genes help make enjymes. And proteins. And we have also other epigenetic mechanisms which tell our organism which parts of the DNA to use. And so on and so forth. So not a "snowflake" if you ask me. And we know that no random (call it "non guided" if the "random" buffles you) process which creates NEW and at the same time USEFUL information! (this is why we are afraid of having a random mutation - what are the chances of it being beneficial and not cancer?) I am open to other alternatives, but I cannot stand hearing once more the "it is not random" denial. Claiming that something is not random without providing details on what makes it "no random" is simply a joke.

[Ginkgo]

The problems with the DNA and the wrong arguments used in this thread are:

1. No one is talking about fairies or dragons or teapots. When someone speaks of "this must have a designer" it does not mean that he makes any claim regarding the traits of that designer. So don't invent strawman arguments out of nowhere.

If we use Russell's teapot in relation to science it is important to keep in mind that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. As far as science is concerned this is not tantamount to saying that this is strong evidence that disproves the hypothesis.

The onus is still on science to come up with the necessary evidence. However, when "someone" says that the lack of transitional evidence of fossils disproves evolution then they mistaking believing this is conclusive evidence. This is an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from ignorance because there is always tendency to pick some aspect of science( biology, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry) that cannot explain the theory satisfactorily as a means to abandon science in favour of pseudo-science that provides an out of nowhere solution for real science in terms of a God of the gaps explanation.

[Ginkgo]

Have you not heard of Gödel who proved that science cannot prove everything?

Hay so what did Godel do? Mathematically prove nothing can be proven lol?

He proved that any theory based on a specific set of axioms (as all theories are) cannot prove everything which is true.

When we forget that simple truth, we become dogmatic.

And anyone believing into the "Science will prove everything" motto has done so...

Yes, but "any theory" doesn't try to prove "everything." In other words, there is no one axiom that claims to be able to prove everything.

[Hjarloprillar]

There is an axiom that proves one thing.

Cogito ergo sum.

any attempt to invalidate it .. proves it.

prill
-------------------\
as to 'everything'...what is that? Science can only work with what it knows..
As reality holds far more information than we can ever process we cannot prove or disprove everything.
Thus the limits of science is what we have knowledge of to make a theory.
Them we can go about trying to disprove it.

For science is. the failure to disprove a theory based in readily available experimental datum..

Thus black holes are a theory and not a fact. exct

prill

[Ginkgo]

There is an axiom that proves one thing.

Cogito ergo sum.

any attempt to invalidate it .. proves it.

prill
-------------------\
as to 'everything'...what is that? Science can only work with what it knows..
As reality holds far more information than we can ever process we cannot prove or disprove everything.
Thus the limits of science is what we have knowledge of to make a theory.
Them we can go about trying to disprove it.

For science is. the failure to disprove a theory based in readily available experimental datum..

Thus black holes are a theory and not a fact. exct

prill

You seem to be identifying two types of "truths" Analytical truths as far as the Cogito is concerned and matters of fact in relation to science. All scientific theories remain theoretical because all we can ever say is that the theory is supported by the facts. In other words, the empirical facts imply that science is only ever a theory.

[Hjarloprillar]

"You seem to be identifying two types of "truths" Analytical truths as far as the Cogito is concerned and matters of fact in relation to science. All scientific theories remain theoretical because all we can ever say is that the theory is supported by the facts. In other words, the empirical facts imply that science is only ever a theory.

I said no such thing. I said theory is supported by evidence.
Now.. if you wish to say events are supported by what>then its just another stack of turtles.

WE HAVE TO DRAW A LINE THE SAND.
And we have.
So far all our technology WORKS

Thants a pretty good line.

[Ginkgo]

I said no such thing. I said theory is supported by evidence.
Now.. if you wish to say events are supported by what>then its just another stack of turtles.

When you said, "theory" I thought you were talking about scientific theory. When you said, "evidence" I thought you were talking about empirical evidence. I must of misunderstood what you were saying.

I think we can say that events are not supported by anything( other that human psychology. This is because we can never observe causation. All we can be aware of is that one event (a) is usually followed by event (b) There is no logical necessity that shows one event should be followed by its constituent effect.

[Hjarloprillar]

So far all our technology WORKS

Every time.
It is based in what i believe.
You say we build a thermonuclear weapon and detonate it and
---------------------------
All we can be aware of is that one event (a) is usually followed by event (b) There is no logical necessity that shows one event should be followed by its constituent effect.

---------------------------

the weapon explodes causing no effect?
That the weapon does not explode but the effect occurs?'

Do you fly i planes.. cause GE turbines produce zero thrus.

your logic is illogical.

proven by fact that you will get on airplane to fly to where-ever.
that your iphone WORKS.
That if you eat a huge curry you will take a titanic t=dump

metaphysical
Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms

What is there?
What is it like?

----------------------------
What a stupid way to describe Reason

[Ginkgo]

So far all our technology WORKS

Every time.
It is based in what i believe.
You say we build a thermonuclear weapon and detonate it and
---------------------------
All we can be aware of is that one event (a) is usually followed by event (b) There is no logical necessity that shows one event should be followed by its constituent effect.

---------------------------

the weapon explodes causing no effect?
That the weapon does not explode but the effect occurs?'

Do you fly i planes.. cause GE turbines produce zero thrus.

your logic is illogical.

proven by fact that you will get on airplane to fly to where-ever.
that your iphone WORKS.
That if you eat a huge curry you will take a titanic t=dump

metaphysical
Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms

What is there?
What is it like?

----------------------------
What a stupid way to describe Reason

Yes, all of this stuff works when it comes to jet engines. In exactly the same way as the electronics that fly the aircraft works by way of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

You obviously have your own unique way of communicating. So keeping that in mind I will take a guess and come up with my response. I will say that the problem of induction is not a problem of metaphysics unless we choose to explain it in terms of human psychology. If we don't then there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect.

Perhaps we can start with Hume:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

[Kuznetzova]

I am open to other alternatives, but I cannot stand hearing once more the "it is not random" denial. Claiming that something is not random without providing details on what makes it "no random" is simply a joke.

Did you just claim that I have not provided details for order-forming processes in nature? Yes. Yeah, I think you did claim that. So lets check this out here,

There are order-forming processes in nature, and these things arise by known laws. These laws are understood in a branch called Statistical Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_self-assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_physics

Liquids and gasses will stir amongst themselves in a way that is given by the Navier-Stokes equations. Liquids form elaborate vortices at all scales. And these micro-vortices give rise to chaotic turbulence. At no point does a student of fluid dynamics hear that these intricate fractal patterns are the result of "water spirits" or "liquid fairies". They happen based on well-understood principles of matter.

(this is me quoting myself from earlier -- right inside this very thread)

I have given Skakos topical links to Self organization, molecular self-assembly, autocatalysis in metabolism, and even Statistical Physics. If he hates wikipedia, he can scroll down to the References section if he so desires.

What does skakos do in response to this? He turns around in the same thread and claims that I have "provided no details" on how DNA formed by physical processes!! I suppose he thinks this means he can continue to run around Philosophy Now! forums claiming that scientists of all stripes say that "DNA formed by random chance". Only time will tell, what sorts of crazy things skakos will say next.

[Kuznetzova]

3. DNA has a structure which ENCODES information. And it has evolved into encoding MORE information over thousands of years. And these genes help make enjymes. And proteins. And we have also other epigenetic mechanisms which tell our organism which parts of the DNA to use. And so on and so forth. So not a "snowflake" if you ask me.

No no skakos. See you are confused now. I was not comparing a snowflake to modern incarnations of DNA in modern organisms. I was comparing a snowflake to the very earliest DNA molecule on earth. Try to keep up.

And we know that no random (call it "non guided" if the "random" buffles you) process which creates NEW and at the same time USEFUL information! (this is why we are afraid of having a random mutation - what are the chances of it being beneficial and not cancer?)

Right. Because DNA (in its modern incarnation) has been subject to 3.1 billion years of Natural Selection. Those unsuccessful versions of DNA all went extinct. Random mutation can and will give rise to variation among a population. And natural selection will go about the process of promoting those versions of DNA which are successful at making copies. The process does not know what is a useful trait prior to being actually useful to an organism.

[Hjarloprillar]

So far all our technology WORKS

Every time.
It is based in what i believe.
You say we build a thermonuclear weapon and detonate it and
---------------------------
All we can be aware of is that one event (a) is usually followed by event (b) There is no logical necessity that shows one event should be followed by its constituent effect.

---------------------------

the weapon explodes causing no effect?
That the weapon does not explode but the effect occurs?'

Do you fly i planes.. cause GE turbines produce zero thrus.

your logic is illogical.

proven by fact that you will get on airplane to fly to where-ever.
that your iphone WORKS.
That if you eat a huge curry you will take a titanic t=dump

metaphysical
Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms

What is there?
What is it like?

----------------------------
What a stupid way to describe Reason

Yes, all of this stuff works when it comes to jet engines. In exactly the same way as the electronics that fly the aircraft works by way of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

You obviously have your own unique way of communicating. So keeping that in mind I will take a guess and come up with my response. I will say that the problem of induction is not a problem of metaphysics unless we choose to explain it in terms of human psychology. If we don't then there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect.

Perhaps we can start with Hume:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Heisenberg has very little to do with how an aircraft works. your talking poop.

Yes . My way actually
communicates ideas . and not preconception. My way works.
Many say Nikos. How do you put such passion in one page.?

Rum

[Ginkgo]

So far all our technology WORKS

Every time.
It is based in what i believe.
You say we build a thermonuclear weapon and detonate it and
---------------------------
All we can be aware of is that one event (a) is usually followed by event (b) There is no logical necessity that shows one event should be followed by its constituent effect.

---------------------------

the weapon explodes causing no effect?
That the weapon does not explode but the effect occurs?'

Do you fly i planes.. cause GE turbines produce zero thrus.

your logic is illogical.

proven by fact that you will get on airplane to fly to where-ever.
that your iphone WORKS.
That if you eat a huge curry you will take a titanic t=dump

metaphysical
Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms

What is there?
What is it like?

----------------------------
What a stupid way to describe Reason

Yes, all of this stuff works when it comes to jet engines. In exactly the same way as the electronics that fly the aircraft works by way of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

You obviously have your own unique way of communicating. So keeping that in mind I will take a guess and come up with my response. I will say that the problem of induction is not a problem of metaphysics unless we choose to explain it in terms of human psychology. If we don't then there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect.

Perhaps we can start with Hume:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Heisenberg has very little to do with how an aircraft works. your talking poop.

Yes . My way actually
communicates ideas . and not preconception. My way works.
Many say Nikos. How do you put such passion in one page.?

Rum

Well obviously! Hume,Schrodinger,Heisenberg, Einstein and everyone else who addressed the on going problem of cause and effect in the macro world and micro world don't know what they are talking about.

[Hjarloprillar]

they did
they just didnt give afuck
:
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. ..

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And René Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

[Ginkgo]

they did
they just didnt give afuck
:
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. ..

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And René Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Fair enough. It was nice discussing the issues with you.