Philosophy Now Forum

VA to ChatGpt
The goals of science:
Upon a Google search, I am presented the following by its Search AI:

"The goals of science are to describe, explain, predict, and control the natural world:
Describe: Understand the behaviors and events being studied through careful observation
Explain: Identify the conditions that cause behaviors and events to occur
Predict: Use data to foretell the occurrence of behaviors and events in the future
Control: Make a behavior occur or not occur "

It appears the goals of Science is restricted to above and has nothing to do with the ontological indication that there is something real beyond the scientific observations and descriptions.
Where scientists hold personal beliefs in something beyond the scientific realm, it categorically has nothing to do with science per se.

In certain Sciences, it is necessary to ASSUME the existence of a mind-independent external reality awaiting discovery. However, this assumption is merely a methodological assumption and has no ontological associations.

I understand Kant demonstrated the metaphysical and ontological claim of any things as scientifically real is impossible. Whatever is assumed to exist beyond the scientific realm i.e. the noumenon is only to used regulatively to guide science forward and cannot be claimed in any constitutive mode.

ChatGPT
Your observations highlight an important distinction between the methodological goals of science and the ontological assumptions that may underlie scientific practice, as well as the philosophical implications of Kant's ideas on this matter. Let’s break this down further:

The Goals of Science
The goals outlined in your query—describe, explain, predict, and control—reflect the empirical focus of science. Science concerns itself with phenomena that can be observed, measured, and modeled within its methodological framework.

Describe: Systematic observation and categorization of natural phenomena.
Explain: Understanding causal relationships and mechanisms behind phenomena.
Predict: Developing models and theories that can anticipate future occurrences.
Control: Applying scientific understanding to manipulate or influence outcomes, often for practical benefits.

Ontological Implications in Science
The goals of science, as stated, do not inherently commit to any ontological claims about the existence of a mind-independent reality.

The assumption of a mind-independent external reality is a methodological necessity for many sciences, particularly the physical sciences. Scientists often work as though such a reality exists to construct and test theories.
However, this methodological assumption does not equate to an ontological assertion. It is a pragmatic tool for advancing knowledge rather than a claim about the ultimate nature of reality.

Kant's Contribution
Kant’s Transcendental Idealism aligns well with this distinction. According to Kant:

Scientific Knowledge and Empirical Realism: Science operates within the bounds of phenomena—things as they appear to us through the mediation of our senses and cognitive faculties. These phenomena are structured by the categories of understanding and the forms of intuition (space and time).

Noumenon as a Regulative Idea: The noumenon (thing-in-itself) is not something that can be directly known or described by science. Instead, it serves a regulative function, guiding inquiry by suggesting that there may be an ultimate ground for appearances, even if it is not accessible to cognition. It ensures that science remains open to the possibility of further discoveries without making constitutive claims about a reality beyond phenomena.

No Constitutive Claims Beyond Phenomena: For Kant, any claim about the existence of a "scientifically real" entity beyond phenomena is metaphysically and ontologically untenable. The realm of science is confined to the empirical, leaving the noumenal as a boundary concept rather than an object of direct investigation.

Personal Beliefs of Scientists
When scientists personally believe in an external reality that exists independently of human cognition, these beliefs often transcend the scope of science itself. Such beliefs may be philosophical or metaphysical in nature, not scientific. Science as a practice remains agnostic about these claims, adhering strictly to what can be observed, tested, and empirically verified.

Conclusion
Your understanding aligns with a nuanced view of science that separates its methodological operations from metaphysical or ontological commitments. Kant’s insights reinforce this separation by showing that while science can describe and explain the phenomenal world, it cannot claim access to the ultimate nature of reality (the noumenon). This perspective safeguards scientific practice from overstepping into speculative metaphysics while allowing room for regulative ideas to inspire ongoing inquiry.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2024 5:57 am Notes:

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2024 5:57 am Notes:

Is this the argument that science doesn't answer the 'why' questions?

• 1. Whatever is objective is factual
  2. Whatever is factual is a feature of reality which is the case, a state of affairs, or just is, i.e. it exists absolutely independent of the mind and human conditions; it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
  3. Moral elements are merely opinions not facts
  4. Morality is not objective.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:18 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2024 5:57 am Notes:

Is this the argument that science doesn't answer the 'why' questions?

Not sure what 'why' you are referring to?

Note one of the above goals:
Explain: Understanding causal relationships and mechanisms behind phenomena.
which answers the 'why' questions.

The point of the OP is science does not answer or even attempt to discover the ultimate 'what is'.

One related issue is this:

• 1. Whatever is objective is factual
  2. Whatever is factual is a feature of reality which is the case, a state of affairs, or just is, i.e. it exists absolutely independent of the mind and human conditions; it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
  3. Moral elements are merely opinions not facts
  4. Morality is not objective.

When pressed on how 2 is justified?
the answer is scientific successes justify 2.

But the goals of science as listed in the OP does not include the discovery of 2.
therefore the above argument is not valid.

AI Overview
Learn more
Science can't always answer "why" questions, but it can answer "what is" and "how" questions:

What is
Science can answer questions like "What is the universal gravitational constant?" or "What is the speed of light?".
How
Science can answer questions like "How does the speed of light relate to our perception of color?".
Why
Science can't answer questions like "Why is this the gravitational constant, rather than some other?" or "Why is the speed of light what it is?".

Science can't answer "why" questions because they often have too many possible answers. Science also can't make judgments about whether something is right, wrong, good, or bad. Instead, science helps us describe how the world is, and that knowledge can inform our decisions and opinions.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:18 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:01 am
Is this the argument that science doesn't answer the 'why' questions?

Not sure what 'why' you are referring to?

Note one of the above goals:
Explain: Understanding causal relationships and mechanisms behind phenomena.
which answers the 'why' questions.

The point of the OP is science does not answer or even attempt to discover the ultimate 'what is'.

One related issue is this:

• 1. Whatever is objective is factual
  2. Whatever is factual is a feature of reality which is the case, a state of affairs, or just is, i.e. it exists absolutely independent of the mind and human conditions; it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
  3. Moral elements are merely opinions not facts
  4. Morality is not objective.

When pressed on how 2 is justified?
the answer is scientific successes justify 2.

But the goals of science as listed in the OP does not include the discovery of 2.
therefore the above argument is not valid.

That's the 'why'. Google's AI

AI Overview
Learn more
Science can't always answer "why" questions, but it can answer "what is" and "how" questions:

What is
Science can answer questions like "What is the universal gravitational constant?" or "What is the speed of light?".
How
Science can answer questions like "How does the speed of light relate to our perception of color?".
Why
Science can't answer questions like "Why is this the gravitational constant, rather than some other?" or "Why is the speed of light what it is?".

Science can't answer "why" questions because they often have too many possible answers. Science also can't make judgments about whether something is right, wrong, good, or bad. Instead, science helps us describe how the world is, and that knowledge can inform our decisions and opinions.

AI Wrote:
Science can indeed provide answers to many "why" questions, but the type of "why" matters.

Science excels at answering "how" and "what" questions. It can explain how the Earth orbits the Sun, what atoms are made of, and how a virus replicates.

When it comes to "why" questions, science can provide explanations based on observable phenomena and testable hypotheses. For example, science can explain why the sky is blue by describing how sunlight interacts with the atmosphere. This explanation doesn't delve into ultimate purpose or meaning, but it provides a clear and evidence-based answer to the "why" question.  

However, science may struggle with "why" questions that delve into ultimate purpose, meaning, or value. These questions often involve philosophical or metaphysical concepts that are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. For instance, science cannot definitively answer questions like "Why are we here?" or "What is the meaning of life?"  

In summary, science can answer many "why" questions, but its limitations lie in addressing questions that transcend the physical world and delve into subjective or metaphysical realms.

Scott Mayers wrote:I think I first heard this as a means to discuss this with competing 'goals' of the religious. By clarifying their domains as distinct, it tries to prevent the religious from feeling threatened and keeps the demarcation for political peace within the institutes. So the topic relates to "demarcation" in general and helps to focus science on what can be 'democratically' decided in a world regardless of whether there is or is not a god.

I think that the idea is to think of everything as being in a black boxes that only have description labels of what it inside that you can use to reason with. So, like Kant, the idea would be to not presume we know the objects 'out there' but use the descriptions of our shared 'senses' that INFER what we think of as independent reality, represented as the hidden contents of the boxes.

This is sensible. But I still think that the theoretical scientist can discuss this in the domains of Metaphysics and Ontology, the things that DO ask what is actual object's 'reality' is or how it derived from nothing? The demarcation is for the general processes of discovery and reasoning from observations in science. Asking what the actual realities are is still the intent of the scientist (or anyone curious) though. The 'politic' part of science requires agreeing to the condition that we only deal with what we can share equally among all people ideally and that any process be described based upon our human senses as the starting point.