The Limits of Science

[surreptitious57]

Science can investigate any thing just as long as it is a testable hypothesis
that can be subject to potential falsification. For any thing else is beyond
it s remit and so is non scientific by definition. Which includes hypotheses
that may actually be true but cannot be demonstrated as such because of
limitations in knowledge or technology. Because in science evidence is all

[cirin]

The natural sciences have lost credibility. Events such as global warming and other natural catastrophic happenings do not find answers by way of scientific explanation. Our established system of education and teaching embodies knowledge that does not have its basis in spiritual values. Thus medicine is still unable to provide accurate reasons for illnesses. For the last half century biologists and physicians worldwide have developed vaccines to eliminate one or another virus. However, we observe that illnesses do not disappear, but have the opposite effect - we get new protein mutations, new variations of disease, and a gradual deterioration of the entire situation.

[cirin]

In this video, 12min. summarizes the concept of modern harmonious worldview, which provides answers to these and many other questions. It's time to move from proclamations to a reasonable understanding of life and begin to live this understanding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDidxZucGw8

[skakos]

Science can investigate any thing just as long as it is a testable hypothesis
that can be subject to potential falsification. For any thing else is beyond
it s remit and so is non scientific by definition. Which includes hypotheses
that may actually be true but cannot be demonstrated as such because of
limitations in knowledge or technology. Because in science evidence is all

I am not sure this is always the case.
How is the theory of multiple parallel universes for example falsified?
How can evolution adhere to that rule, when it says that "The most evolved is the one who survives" when the "One who survives is the most evolved"?
How can the mathematical theories about infinity adhere to that rule?
Have we seen infinity for example?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

In this video, 12min. summarizes the concept of modern harmonious worldview, which provides answers to these and many other questions. It's time to move from proclamations to a reasonable understanding of life and begin to live this understanding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDidxZucGw8

Dear Jesus,

The first time you came down it did not do anything. If I remember correctly, you said 144,000 would be saved.

That's less than 0.001% of the populace. So, 2000 years later, how are you going to save anyone with one Youtube video and a book that has yet to be translated from Russian?

[thedoc]

Science can investigate any thing just as long as it is a testable hypothesis
that can be subject to potential falsification. For any thing else is beyond
it s remit and so is non scientific by definition. Which includes hypotheses
that may actually be true but cannot be demonstrated as such because of
limitations in knowledge or technology. Because in science evidence is all

I am not sure this is always the case.
How is the theory of multiple parallel universes for example falsified?
How can evolution adhere to that rule, when it says that "The most evolved is the one who survives" when the "One who survives is the most evolved"?
How can the mathematical theories about infinity adhere to that rule?
Have we seen infinity for example?

The theory of multiple parallel universes is speculative fiction but as it cannot be tested, it is not science.

Evolution is science because there are theories and hypothesis that can be tested by gathering evidence in the fossil record, and by observing living organisms. The most evolved is the one who survives is true because survival is based on fitting the organism into the existing environment, and evolution only fits the organism into the environment. Human judgement or opinion is irrelevant.

Math is a useful tool of science, but math is not itself science, so infinity is not science, it is a mathematical principle.

[Ginkgo]

The theory of multiple parallel universes is speculative fiction but as it cannot be tested, it is not science.

Probably true.String theory has contributed a lot to the idea of parallel universes. As the critics point out string theory has not succeeded in coming with with any testable predictions. Instead it is just a composite of complicated mathematical procedures and predictions. Supporters of string theory would point out the links string theory has to standard physics.

Evolution is science because there are theories and hypothesis that can be tested by gathering evidence in the fossil record, and by observing living organisms. The most evolved is the one who survives is true because survival is based on fitting the organism into the existing environment, and evolution only fits the organism into the environment. Human judgement or opinion is irrelevant.

Yes, I think the ability of an organism to fit into an environment is important. I agree, that it is not about "the one who survives is the most evolved". Not far from where I lived were a colony of organism whose ancestors have existed virtually unchanged for billions of years. Stromatolites are a very successful collection of basic organisms that survive to this day in many places around the world.

[skakos]

Science can investigate any thing just as long as it is a testable hypothesis
that can be subject to potential falsification. For any thing else is beyond
it s remit and so is non scientific by definition. Which includes hypotheses
that may actually be true but cannot be demonstrated as such because of
limitations in knowledge or technology. Because in science evidence is all

I am not sure this is always the case.
How is the theory of multiple parallel universes for example falsified?
How can evolution adhere to that rule, when it says that "The most evolved is the one who survives" when the "One who survives is the most evolved"?
How can the mathematical theories about infinity adhere to that rule?
Have we seen infinity for example?

The theory of multiple parallel universes is speculative fiction but as it cannot be tested, it is not science.

Evolution is science because there are theories and hypothesis that can be tested by gathering evidence in the fossil record, and by observing living organisms. The most evolved is the one who survives is true because survival is based on fitting the organism into the existing environment, and evolution only fits the organism into the environment. Human judgement or opinion is irrelevant.

Math is a useful tool of science, but math is not itself science, so infinity is not science, it is a mathematical principle.

So math is not science and yet science is based on math.
And evolution is science because we can test the past through it. And it does not matter whether it is autoanaphorical or not. Human judgement is irrelevant in this case. Interesting...
As for the parallel universes theories, they may be mentioned by great astronomers or physicists and yet we do not have an opinion of whether it is science or not. Interesting too...

[Hobbes' Choice]

Science is a great tool. But can science ("exact science" to be exact) investigate everything? Can it investigate things which cannot be replicated in a laboratory? Can it investigate things which cannot be measured? Can it investigate things which happen only once? What do you think are limits of Science?

Well obviously - that's why these things are called metaphysical.
They have no place in physical reality except as mental constructs.
Whist these help us understand the world about they are not the proper subject of exact science. That is not to say that such things are not mobilised in the study of the physical world, they are. But they are the means of description not the object of it.
Errors come into play, pseudo-science, social science all come to bear when this error of attention is found. When the concept becomes the object then you don't get science answers.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I am not sure this is always the case.
How is the theory of multiple parallel universes for example falsified?
How can evolution adhere to that rule, when it says that "The most evolved is the one who survives" when the "One who survives is the most evolved"?
How can the mathematical theories about infinity adhere to that rule?
Have we seen infinity for example?

The theory of multiple parallel universes is speculative fiction but as it cannot be tested, it is not science.

Evolution is science because there are theories and hypothesis that can be tested by gathering evidence in the fossil record, and by observing living organisms. The most evolved is the one who survives is true because survival is based on fitting the organism into the existing environment, and evolution only fits the organism into the environment. Human judgement or opinion is irrelevant.

Math is a useful tool of science, but math is not itself science, so infinity is not science, it is a mathematical principle.

So math is not science and yet science is based on math.
And evolution is science because we can test the past through it. And it does not matter whether it is autoanaphorical or not. Human judgement is irrelevant in this case. Interesting...
As for the parallel universes theories, they may be mentioned by great astronomers or physicists and yet we do not have an opinion of whether it is science or not. Interesting too...

Science is based on evidence. Maths is a tool to describe that evidence.
Evolution is not science. Evolution is a field of study within science. "Evolution" of which there are several theories, is not anaphoric.
Parallel universes are not science. They are a mathematical speculation.

[thedoc]

So math is not science and yet science is based on math.

And evolution is science because we can test the past through it. And it does not matter whether it is autoanaphorical or not. Human judgement is irrelevant in this case. Interesting...

As for the parallel universes theories, they may be mentioned by great astronomers or physicists and yet we do not have an opinion of whether it is science or not. Interesting too...

As stated by myself and others, math is a tool of science, but math itself is not science. Science is not based on math, science uses math as a tool. There is a difference.

Human judgement is irrelevant in determining if an organism is well fitted to it's environment because humans have usually not fully understood the environment.

All scientists propose hypothesis, often in different forms, testable ideas, thought experiments, etc. when the experimental evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis, it is accepted till disproven. If there is no evidence supporting it, and if the experimental results show it to be wrong, it is abandon.

[skakos]

OK.

So we see things created by... creators.

Does this mean it is utterly LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC to search for a creator for the cosmos as well?

[thedoc]

OK.

So we see things created by... creators.

Does this mean it is utterly LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC to search for a creator for the cosmos as well?

Certainly science can search for a creator of the Cosmos, and if there is some physical cause, science might be able to find it. However if the cause is spiritual, such as God, science will not find it unless God chooses to be found.

[surreptitious57]

So math is not science and yet science is based on math

The branch of science that is most dependent on it is physics. But physics is not the whole of science just
a part of it. And so there are other branches such as biology and psychology for example which are not as
dependent on it. The reason why maths is not science is because it is a deductive discipline while science
is an inductive one. Math deals with what is definitely true while science deals with what is probably true

[skakos]

OK.

So we see things created by... creators.

Does this mean it is utterly LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC to search for a creator for the cosmos as well?

Certainly science can search for a creator of the Cosmos, and if there is some physical cause, science might be able to find it. However if the cause is spiritual, such as God, science will not find it unless God chooses to be found.

It all depends on the true scope of science.
Meta-physics is well beyond that scope.