The Limits of Science

[Arising_uk]

...
Science has everything to do with prediction models but NOTHING to do with the "truth". ...

Not true, they have the probably true.

Philosophy tries to find the truth but the only thing is actually HAS found is that there is NO truth whatsoever!

Not true, they have the logically true.

Religion is a mix of science and philosophy but for the Self.

Where's the science in religion? Do you mean psychology? Not quite a science just yet. Religion is a mix of metaphysics, psychology and politics.

What you experience (empirical data - "science"), what you understand (your logic - "science"), make up your metaphysical philosophy - your religion.

It may well be data but what you experience is exactly not scientific empirical data, in my opinion.

I have written an extensive article at http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... lazj6wq-2/ concerning religion and science unification.

I would really enjoy having comments on it.

I'll take a look, it may be fun.

Can't guarantee that I'll have anything apposite to say tho'.

The "One" cannot be felt with the dogmatism engulfing modern scientism - a.k.a. materialism...

Materialism is not 'modern scientism'(whatever that is?).

If there is this 'One' then I assume its a material of some type, so why would materialism stop one feeling it?

[henry quirk]

"Science has everything to do with prediction models but NOTHING to do with the "truth"."

That depends entirely on how one defines 'truth'.

I say truth (what is true) is that which corresponds or is aligned with 'fact'.

If you accept this definition, then you must accept that science (the method) 'can' offer a pathway to truth.

If you have a differing definition (of truth) then -- practically speaking -- we (you and me) are livin’ on different worlds.

[uwot]

Science has everything to do with prediction models but NOTHING to do with the "truth".

Science tries to discover the "truth" about how the universe behaves; as you say, partly to generate prediction models, that help us wend our way through life. It is only interested in the truth about what the universe is insofar as it affects what happens. Of course, lots of scientists are interested in what everything is ultimately made of, but it is only science if a certain belief, at least theoretically, gives rise to repeatable and ultimately predictable phenomena.

Philosophy tries to find the truth but the only thing is actually HAS found is that there is NO truth whatsoever!

Well, Parmenides pointed out that there isn't nothing; more to the point, something definitely exists. Descartes upped the ante by proving that experience exists. It's not a lot, I grant you, but it isn't quite no truth whatsoever.

Religion is a mix of science and philosophy but for the Self.What you experience (empirical data - "science"), what you understand (your logic - "science"), make up your metaphysical philosophy - your religion.

You're Greek skakos, you should know that philosophy started with Thales separating science and religion. Pythagoras tried to create a philosophy that blended maths and religion, but what the ancient Greek philosophers did was to break up thinking into smaller chunks. It meant that people could create a philosophy of their own, based on their own experiences. This has led to philosophers and scientists devoting entire careers to tiny problems, a great deal of which will be of no practical value, but you never know until you look. A philosophy should include an opinion on metaphysics, it should not, therefore, include religion, much less be one.

The "One" cannot be felt with the dogmatism engulfing modern scientism - a.k.a. materialism...

I think this is a bit of a myth. Certainly scientists can be dogmatic, Max Planck suggested that new theories don't replace old ones, it's just that scientists with old beliefs die out. But there is no materialist agenda; like I said, scientists are interested in how the world behaves; materialism is a philosophical point of view that some scientists, no doubt adhere to, but it is not science. There is nothing about the "One" that is contradicted by science unless you make a claim that the universe will behave in a measurable way that can only be attributed to the "One".
You say in your article:
"It is also very important to understand that science and religion are both based on some kind of faith. Science on the faith that an ultimate truth exists and that logic can reveal that ultimate truth and religion on the faith that an ultimate purpose (and, thus, God) exists"

This just isn't true. Science isn't based on any faith, it just describes the way the world is and is prepared to be surprised at any point.

[Blaggard]

To add there's nothing dogmatic about materialism, since science can only experiment on things that they can show by experiment they are limited to things that are provable, and not on the soul or anything else immaterial, well aside from some notable exceptions such as human thought and behaviour, anthropology, but you get the idea. There's a reason such things as sociology, anthropology and psychology are considered weaker sciences though. That's not to say they have less to contribute but often what they do is more art than science.

Philosophy can discuss matters such as the soul, ontology and epistemology. Why people keep attacking science for doing something they can't ever do, and can never be expected to is kinda weird. It's important I think to have one sphere of knowledge that attacks on the grounds of the material and evidential, one that attacks on the grounds of the spiritual, and one that is the mediator between the two, but let's make sure you are attacking the right sphere of thought. That said yes scientists are biased, scientists can even be dogmatic, but they are of course only human, they use the methodology they do: mostly developed by philosophers, to try and mitigate their bias, of course it doesn't always work but meh nothing's perfect.

Most scientists in the world are religious, this is something that must be true, but what they don't do is bring their religion to work, if they want to indulge in religion they use philosophy, usually quite poorly, not always, Bohr, Schrödinger, Liebniz and many others did sterling work in many fields, not many people are polymaths though.

[uwot]

To add there's nothing dogmatic about materialism, since science can only experiment on things that they can show by experiment they are limited to things that are provable, and not on the soul or anything else immaterial,

In another thread you showed some images of clouds of electrons and a graphic of a spherical nucleus with spherical electrons. It is Democritus' vision of solid 'material' atoms that many people who are new to the subject have in mind. I think it's worth bearing in mind that if you say 'material', that is what people think you mean. Physics, as I understand it, doesn't measure 'material', it measures forces.

Philosophy can discuss matters such as the soul, ontology and epistemology.

Philosophy can talk about anything; as I say, it's main function is to puts things into a (logically consistent) context. Even nonsens and babble.

[Blaggard]

I disagree physics talks about anything material and energetic, it makes a distinction between the two for very real reasons, and it is perhaps the only sphere of thought that absolutely distinguishes the two. One is more particular often the other is more wavelength often but it does deal in both. It's just a very complicated subject about the distinction between matter and energy.

Philosophy can talk about anything; as I say, it's main function is to puts things into a (logically consistent) context. Even nonsens and babble.

Aye and that is why it is the great arbiter it can talk about anything and everything where as religion or science are restricted to very particular methods. I see that as it's overriding strength some people in science see it as a weakness but then scientists come in all flavours.

[uwot]

I disagree physics talks about anything material and energetic, it makes a distinction between the two for very real reasons, and it is perhaps the only sphere of thought that absolutely distinguishes the two. One is more particular often the other is more wavelength often but it does deal in both. It's just a very complicated subject about the distinction between matter and energy.

Well, I disagree back, then. In the sense that I was talking about 'material' ie solid stuff, I don't think physics makes any such commitment.
As Arising intimated, philosophers think in terms of 'substance', so as far as some of us are concerned, the most plausible explanation for the phenomena that suggest a substance that can manifest as matter or energy, is some such substance that is the cause of the phenomena, but I wouldn't call it 'matter' in the 'atomos' uncuttable sense that Democritus meant. Or Parmenides, for that matter.

[Blaggard]

Well as well you might, those are philosophical discussions, science only deals in mathematics or experiment. It is as well we disagree? if we did not what would be the point of physics or philosophy being distinct. We're addressing the problem from different angles, mine are degrees of inflection, yours are inflections of degree.

It does make such a distinction it is the only of the three areas of thought that does so. For the moment it has, for matter has a rest mass energy does not.

[uwot]

Well as well you might, those are philosophical discussions, science only deals in mathematics or experiment. It is as well we disagree? if we did not what would be the point of physics or philosophy being distinct.

Rule number one of philosophy: Everyone else is wrong. It's the only way to make progress. Two and a half thousand on, it's a long term project.

We're addressing the problem from different angles, mine are degrees of inflection, yours are inflections of degree

No they're not.

[Blaggard]

Well as well you might, those are philosophical discussions, science only deals in mathematics or experiment. It is as well we disagree? if we did not what would be the point of physics or philosophy being distinct.

Rule number one of philosophy: Everyone else is wrong. It's the only way to make progress. Two and a half thousand on, it's a long term project.

Well of course if everyone was right philosophy would be as dead as science, the point I think is in the way you argue: in philosophy there's no exact answer you argue to resolve how you might more relevantly do so, and you refine the process therein. In science you argue because some chancer has no evidence, when it turns up you stop arguing about it, try to repeat the experiment and if it works concede defeat, there are hence very different ways of approaching discussions in either field.

Vivre le difference.

We're addressing the problem from different angles, mine are degrees of inflection, yours are inflections of degree

No they're not.

Inflection in maths is when a point changes from a plus to a minus or a minus to a plus, very important in any physics equation in either mass based mathematics or wave mechanics, inflection in language is a grammatical issue and how you express your words.

That said I know it's not that strong a supposition, I just liked the sound of it, I don't think it's entirely wrong, but I see the contentions with why it might be. I thought it was quite clever, but then I would...

[uwot]

My mistake, Blaggard:

No they're not

[Blaggard]

Makes a change I usually am. But then I am one of those people who kinda enjoys being wrong, and kinda likes more being right. And yes I am a freak.

[Hjarloprillar]

I believe it is reasonable to 'for now' accept that scientific method is accurate to what IS.
[even without observer] It is based in causality. And causality seems to work.
Relativistic effects such as mass increase and time dilation. Are piled on top of the heap. [and acausal events]
Together with other observations 'what is true' starts becoming a surrealistic nightmare of interconnected [or not]
phenomena.

I accept few truths. And they work or seem to work well together.
If you believe everything humans spout you'll go mad in short order.

Reality is usefull.
As P K Dick said.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away"

Prill

[skakos]

...
Science has everything to do with prediction models but NOTHING to do with the "truth". ...

Not true, they have the probably true.

Philosophy tries to find the truth but the only thing is actually HAS found is that there is NO truth whatsoever!

Not true, they have the logically true.

Religion is a mix of science and philosophy but for the Self.

Where's the science in religion? Do you mean psychology? Not quite a science just yet. Religion is a mix of metaphysics, psychology and politics.

What you experience (empirical data - "science"), what you understand (your logic - "science"), make up your metaphysical philosophy - your religion.

It may well be data but what you experience is exactly not scientific empirical data, in my opinion.

I have written an extensive article at http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... lazj6wq-2/ concerning religion and science unification.

I would really enjoy having comments on it.

I'll take a look, it may be fun.

Can't guarantee that I'll have anything apposite to say tho'.

The "One" cannot be felt with the dogmatism engulfing modern scientism - a.k.a. materialism...

Materialism is not 'modern scientism'(whatever that is?).

If there is this 'One' then I assume its a material of some type, so why would materialism stop one feeling it?

What is "logically" true is true only in the context of specifix axioms. And axioms are based on nothing.
Religion is based on empirical evidence as science does. Religious people believe because of some religious experience they have...

[skakos]

"Science has everything to do with prediction models but NOTHING to do with the "truth"."

That depends entirely on how one defines 'truth'.

I say truth (what is true) is that which corresponds or is aligned with 'fact'.

If you accept this definition, then you must accept that science (the method) 'can' offer a pathway to truth.

If you have a differing definition (of truth) then -- practically speaking -- we (you and me) are livin’ on different worlds.

Facts exist only in our mind.
If a religious person has a religious experience, would you accept it as a "fact"?