Science, Emperical proofs & Mystery.
Is everything ultimately deducible through the process of empirical research.....ie Science..?
Is science capable of resolving all mysteries ?
Or is it possible that there will be things that science will never fully grasp or be able to explain ?
Does the current scientific empirical process have its own built in limits ?
If so, what model - methods will evolve ?
Is science capable of resolving all mysteries ?
Or is it possible that there will be things that science will never fully grasp or be able to explain ?
Does the current scientific empirical process have its own built in limits ?
If so, what model - methods will evolve ?
Comments
Or is it possible that there will be things that science will never fully grasp or be able to explain ?
How about art and its appreciation?
Originally posted by Stoo
How about art and its appreciation?
are you saying..
" It does not compute ?"
Originally posted by Stoo
How about art and its appreciation?
COUGH! *symmetry* COUGH! *opiate receptors*
Wow it's late (early)
I blame all displayed idiocy on that fact.
It's like learning, the more your learn, the more you discover how little your knowledge is.
Science is an infinite sea, the more you go far on it, the more you discover it's huge.
I've got to stop having that second latte.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Science cannot measure joy, love, happiness, contentment, kindness, truth, anger, resentment, authority, beauty--and the list goes on.
Sure it can. They are called brain scans.
Edit: Okay okay they actually have more scientific terminology often refering to the actual technique used... say PET, positron emision tomography, or MRI magnetic resonance imaging etc etc...
Originally posted by aquafire
Is everything ultimately deducible through the process of empirical research.....ie Science..?
Is science capable of resolving all mysteries ?
Or is it possible that there will be things that science will never fully grasp or be able to explain ?
Does the current scientific empirical process have its own built in limits ?
If so, what model - methods will evolve ?
I believe it's premature to answer any of these questions given the fact that science has only really taken off in the last 100 years. As Powerdoc stated, the more science learns the more mysteries are unraveled. So, the only way science will be able to answer all is when no more mysteries will be opened. Will that happen? I don't think anyone can answer that now.
Originally posted by X X
I believe it's premature to answer any of these questions given the fact that science has only really taken off in the last 100 years. As Powerdoc stated, the more science learns the more mysteries are unraveled. So, the only way science will be able to answer all is when no more mysteries will be opened. Will that happen? I don't think anyone can answer that now.
Science is a discipline, a mode of problem solving. The term dates back to at least the 14th century--much more than 100 years. The only thing that has "taken off" is the application or technology, which can be easily argued to be a result of political and economic freedom, not some new discover called "scientific thinking."
Originally posted by Fangorn
Science is a discipline, a mode of problem solving. The term dates back to at least the 14th century--much more than 100 years. The only thing that has "taken off" is the application or technology, which can be easily argued to be a result of political and economic freedom, not some new discover called "scientific thinking."
I apologize for my ambiguity. I wasn't trying to imply science has only been around for a century, I was making the statement, albeit ambiguous, that, like you said, has only taken off in the last 100 years, which, I agree, can be easily argued to be a result of political and economic freedom.
Because of its inchoate freedoms in the history of man and the rapid explosion of scientific freedoms over the last 100 years, I believe it is premature to be able to answer the above questions now because a hundred years from now we can be far more advanced than anyone can possibly imagine, or we may not be.
Given the errant statements made by experts over the last 50 years or so about technology it is easy to see how difficult it is to predict in just 50 years. Such an example of errancy is Bill Gates statement about only needing 64K or RAM. There was someone else who never saw the need for an average person to ever need a "desktop" computer.
Regards!
Originally posted by Fangorn
Oh really, and what is the "scale" for measuring joy? How about happiness? Let's do an easy one: how about "utility"? It's an economic concept and completely unmeasurable.
Easy enough to make an arbitrary scale.
Utility is not an emotional state, thus it is not "an easy one". There is nothing empirical about "utility". And I would strongly disagree with the limited perception of it as an economic concept.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Easy enough to make an arbitrary scale.
Utility is not an emotional state, thus it is not "an easy one". There is nothing empirical about "utility". And I would strongly disagree with the limited perception of it as an economic concept.
No, utility is not an emotional state, which would seem to make it even easier to measure than an emotion. I was speaking of utility within the scope of economics because it is frequently used there to show that people have relatively unique "demand curves." In other words, I might it more "utility" (sometimes also cross-referenced as "satisfaction") from 3 apples than you do. We can come close to measuring "utility" as it is expressed in dollars but not really.
More to the point, you can make an arbitrary scale for joy, but you would find it's usefulness limited, if any at all. I feel joy at the sight my baby's smile. So does the grandmother. You could stick your arbitrary scale in front of us and say, "on this scale, rank your joy" BUT that is not a "scientific" measure. A thermometer records a temperature no matter who is holding it. You can take a thermometer anywhere in the world and it will show you the local temperature. Unlike the temperature, however, my measure of joy would be my reaction to your scale. Joy cannot be quantified from person to person because there is no certainty a rank of "5" from person A is equal to a rank of "5" from person B.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in557724.shtml
Originally posted by X X
Here's an interesting story...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in557724.shtml
Cute idea...But parallel studies have shown that people can actually alter their brains' activity patterns through concious thought..
People might also " beat " the test by utilising self hypnosis.
As regards the alleged criminal having no recall of the event where crime took place..
This in itself does not neccecarily clear accused, mainly, because it is quite possible for the person that had committed the crime to be so traumatized as to have completely eradicated all memories of such an event..
Finally, It also doesn't say how it would cope with people suffering from "multiple personality " disorders or similar mental abberations...
Oh well.......Back to the drawing board8)
Originally posted by aquafire
Cute idea...But parallel studies have shown that people can actually alter their brains' activity patterns through concious thought..
People might also " beat " the test by utilising self hypnosis.
As regards the alleged criminal having no recall of the event where crime took place..
This in itself does not neccecarily clear accused, mainly, because it is quite possible for the person that had committed the crime to be so traumatized as to have completely eradicated all memories of such an event..
Finally, It also doesn't say how it would cope with people suffering from "multiple personality " disorders or similar mental abberations...
Oh well.......Back to the drawing board8)
Well, it does say it could take several decades to get it right.
On your other notes, a lie is only a lie if the person knows they aren't telling the truth. So, in the cases with multiple personalities, amnesia, etc. the subject technically wouldn't be telling a lie because they wouldn't know that they weren't telling the truth.
Nonetheless, this is a nascent technology that may take time to get it right, if it can be made right. I've always been an optimist when it comes to technology, just have to be patient when difficult things are achieved.
Originally posted by X X
Well, it does say it could take several decades to get it right.
I've always been an optimist when it comes to technology, just have to be patient when difficult things are achieved.
Hmmmm..Still waiting for controlled fusion. anti-gravity, perpetual motion machine, quantum computers, life from inorganic compounds, light sabre, a good woman...
(I am happy, ok so why am I happy? Because electrical impulses are being conducted across synapses in the brain. Where in the brain, ect.... you get the point).
However, one has to think. We created sceince so it can never be any greater than the people who created it. Therefore, science can never extend outside of our thoughts. Also, since we are "imperfect" then science must also be considered "imperfect." Obviously a definition problem plauges this entire discussion, and to avoid a post-modernism debate lets not dissect and define each individual word, but just ponder on what this means.
Just a thought........ Hopefully it makes sense
Originally posted by biochemosu
(I am happy, ok so why am I happy? Because electrical impulses are being conducted across synapses in the brain.
I am happy because I am drunk !
Obviously a definition problem plauges this entire discussion, and to avoid a post-modernism debate lets not dissect and define each individual word, but just ponder on what this means.
When I was at University I hated all that semantic dribble by Lachan, Foucalt, Derrida, etc, Total Wankers..there I've said it !
Liguistic semiotics blah blah..
I remember this clever dick Professor who was arguing along the lines of " Post-Modern " language-constructs. limitations of meaning etc..this person then asked the audience if they could think of a language that would be perfectly understood by two people without any mis-interpretations..?
Well being annoyed enough..I stood up and answered.
Mathematics & Musical annotation..
Man she shut up, quick smart..