Philosophy Now Forum

skakos wrote: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?

Only happen once? ..such as?

What phenomena [physical] only happens once.
All are driven by rules. rules exist to govern phenomena

there is no such thing as a phenomenological singularity.

even holes [black] abound. [singularities]
A pit in 3d spacetime eats suns for morning tea.
And we are arrogant enough to suggest we know anything [epistemology]

i chuckle

HexHammer wrote:

skakos wrote: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?

Only happen once? ..such as?

Such as the creation of the Universe?

skakos wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

skakos wrote: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?

Only happen once? ..such as?

Such as the creation of the Universe?

I consider our little local universe as a minor smoke plume amongst many other smoke plumes in a super universe.

Like on earth there are many volcanoes that can cause smoke plumes.

HexHammer wrote:I consider our little local universe as a minor smoke plume amongst many other smoke plumes in a super universe

Agree

There is no evidence whatsoever that our universe is a 'one off'.
That no other verses may exist.

If one 'is', then precedent in phenomena says most likely many do.
Once there was but one galaxy. It was thought by 'experts'. Now we understand there are hundreds of billions.

I believe in a greater reality than one universe. [rf. evolution of verses and cascading]

Prill

Hjarloprillar wrote:

HexHammer wrote:I consider our little local universe as a minor smoke plume amongst many other smoke plumes in a super universe

Agree

There is no evidence whatsoever that our universe is a 'one off'.
That no other verses may exist.

If one 'is', then precedent in phenomena says most likely many do.
Once there was but one galaxy. It was thought by 'experts'. Now we understand there are hundreds of billions.

I believe in a greater reality than one universe. [rf. evolution of verses and cascading]

Prill

Yet there is no proof that other universes exist. If there is I would like to see it, till then it is idle speculation, and of no value.

thedoc wrote:Yet there is no proof that other universes exist. If there is I would like to see it, till then it is idle speculation, and of no value.

Thus 'one verse or many' ? occupies "we do'nt know" category.
which is the point i was making.

Idle speculation is methinks, an oxymoron.

Prill the speculative dilettante.
------------------
[ A dilettante is a person who enjoys the arts or someone who engages in a field as an amateur out of casual interest rather than as a profession.////wiki]

Belief (not a random choice of word) in the existence of other universes is one great example on how faith is an integral part of science.
Even though most will never openly admit it...

skakos wrote:Belief (not a random choice of word) in the existence of other universes is one great example on how faith is an integral part of science.
Even though most will never openly admit it...

Well most scientists consider other universe hypotheses as exactly what they are, philosophical concerns for days when CERN is not running and they are bored. So faith is not really apt, there are a lot of people who think such speculation whilst interesting is outside our ability to ever know and hence is kind of pointless.

Blaggard wrote:

skakos wrote:Belief (not a random choice of word) in the existence of other universes is one great example on how faith is an integral part of science.
Even though most will never openly admit it...

Well most scientists consider other universe hypotheses as exactly what they are, philosophical concerns for days when CERN is not running and they are bored. So faith is not really apt, there are a lot of people who think such speculation whilst interesting is outside our ability to ever know and hence is kind of pointless.

Faith exists in everything you say. When can you be certain 100% for anything?
(let alone the fact that science deals with models, which have absolutely nothing to do with what we call "truth")

skakos wrote:

Blaggard wrote:

skakos wrote:Belief (not a random choice of word) in the existence of other universes is one great example on how faith is an integral part of science.
Even though most will never openly admit it...

Well most scientists consider other universe hypotheses as exactly what they are, philosophical concerns for days when CERN is not running and they are bored. So faith is not really apt, there are a lot of people who think such speculation whilst interesting is outside our ability to ever know and hence is kind of pointless.

Faith exists in everything you say. When can you be certain 100% for anything?
(let alone the fact that science deals with models, which have absolutely nothing to do with what we call "truth")

Never can you be certain of anything, it's what science is about.

Science is ok with talking about what is evidential, it falls down on what is not. Why is that though a problem, shouldn't philosophy pick up the slack?

I think Philosophers have gotten lazy started to attack fields and fields with which they should not, and just gotten into a pickle. Science is your remit as is religion, but you all seem to have gone crazy over science, and I for one want to know why? I never will of course but now all philosophy seems to be bent on attacking its allies over its enemies, and I want to know why? Not going to happen of course, but it is a point of interest..? Religion it now seems is your friend and science your enemy how ironic that is, is of course your concern.

You are though just basically indulging in post, post modernism which is of course your own affair but who are you really talking about?

Then you cannot be certain for many things that atheist scientists talk about.
Like if the universe has a First Cause for example.
Religion on the other hand talks about personal experiences, about what you feel about you and your place in the cosmos.
Religion is also based on empirical evidence.
Are you ready to accept it as a different way of looking at things?

skakos wrote:Then you cannot be certain for many things that atheist scientists talk about.
Like if the universe has a First Cause for example.
Religion on the other hand talks about personal experiences, about what you feel about you and your place in the cosmos.
Religion is also based on empirical evidence.
Are you ready to accept it as a different way of looking at things?

Of course but are you ready to accept that?

skakos wrote:Then you cannot be certain for many things that atheist scientists talk about.
Like if the universe has a First Cause for example.
Religion on the other hand talks about personal experiences, about what you feel about you and your place in the cosmos.
Religion is also based on empirical evidence.
Are you ready to accept it as a different way of looking at things?

Oh yes, that's why we end up with the inqusition nonsense, nothing but supersticion and babble.

Can you only by religion build a skyscaper? A bridge? A jumbo jet? Do a bypass surgery? ..no ..religion is soul mending.

HexHammer wrote:

skakos wrote:Then you cannot be certain for many things that atheist scientists talk about.
Like if the universe has a First Cause for example.
Religion on the other hand talks about personal experiences, about what you feel about you and your place in the cosmos.
Religion is also based on empirical evidence.
Are you ready to accept it as a different way of looking at things?

Oh yes, that's why we end up with the inqusition nonsense, nothing but supersticion and babble.

Can you only by religion build a skyscaper? A bridge? A jumbo jet? Do a bypass surgery? ..no ..religion is soul mending.

Yes, plus you also end up with pseudo science. No one to date has been able to successfully meld science and religion. It might happen one day, but that's a long way down the track.