(July 30, 2011 at 7:52 am)Emanuel Wrote: Well, from what I've understood, Statlor Wardof was saying that science's purpose isn't to discover Truth (with capital "t"). That is the purpose of philosophy. By "Truth" I suppose he meant things like whether there is some objective purpose for human life, in what it consists, what is the origin of the universe (by this I mean the issue of a creator, and whether it's personal and so on), etc.. The pursuit of these "Truths" belongs to philosophy. Science only tries to observe the natural world, understand how it works and also possibly make predictions based on the observations. For example, science discovered the Big Bang. Now science's job is done, and philosophy takes over trying to understand what it means, what implications does this have on a certain worldview, and so on. Science cannot do these things. If a scientist tries to talk about these things, he's stios being a scientist, becoming a little phiolosopher.

This is what I think he meant. May he correct me if I'm wrong.

Statler is a YEC, so no, I doubt that is what he meant. He probably believes science is no more valuable than the material applications of the findings as they pertain to the values of human beings (so he can reap the benefits while denying the implications) where as the rest of us would say that empiricism is the epitome of reason and thus the most pertinent aspect of any conclusions about the nature of reality. From there I would state that philosophy deals with values in light of empiricism when done properly (Quinean philosophy) or despite empiricism when subjective values are held as of higher importance ("continental" philosophy). Statler is clearly in the latter camp.

(July 30, 2011 at 8:56 am)Emanuel Wrote: I admit that you have a point here. But still, science cannot answer everything, neither can it atempt to.

Name something science cannot answer. Also, religion may have answered everything but has any of it's claims ever been proven? Or at least backed up by some kind of evidence? Don't think so.
Being able to answer everything doesn't mean you're right about any of it. Science is a tool, the method in which to separate fact from fiction. Fantasy from reality. Anyone can answer anything, it's finding the correct answer to the question at hand that's the problem.

Well most of the novels I've read in the fantasy genre the hero has some pals who'd help him out. You know, come nail'n day they'd pounce with their specials skills and later they'd drink and laugh about their victory. They wouldn't loose and make up a story about how they'd really won the day.

(July 30, 2011 at 9:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: What is it that you're hoping science can't answer Emanuel? I concede that there are such things, but I doubt that those things have anything to do with the kind of questions you may have.

Well, I'm not hoping that there are questions scienc cannot answer; it's pretty obvious to me, and to you too as you seem to acknowledge. The questions I have? Well, they're the standard questions of life: Does God exist? Is there a reason for humane existence? etc.

(July 30, 2011 at 9:42 am)MilesTailsPrower Wrote: Could you think of 1 thing science can't explain?

After a little googling I found some nice webpages (1|2) that explains it nicely, in my humble opinion. As it says there, things like moral judgments, aesthetics, etc. cannot be answered by appealing only to science.

(July 30, 2011 at 9:42 am)MilesTailsPrower Wrote: Can it explain why you failed to spell attempt wrong?

Sorry for that. English is not my first language, but in the future I will attempt to spell correctly.

It is because those judgements etc are subjective. Science can indeed tell us every possible way we could make these judgements, and the potential outcomes of any judgement. (We do this all of the time). Science can in fact give you answers as to specific gods and the status of their existence. Your life already has a purpose, at the very least, to carry life further through time. Whatever else you want to add is okay, but understand that it is ultimately an assumption, because again, purpose and meaning are subjective.

Not being able to answer a subjective question to your level of satisfaction is not a shortcoming of science that requires you (or us)to insert a god.

(July 30, 2011 at 11:51 am)Emanuel Wrote: After a little googling I found some nice webpages (1|2) that explains it nicely, in my humble opinion. As it says there, things like moral judgments, aesthetics, etc. cannot be answered by appealing only to science.

The existance of morals can be explained perfectly well by science so I see no reason why aesthetics cant be either if anyone cares to do the legwork on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

It's interesting that Emanuel would claim all this stuff about science and it's inability to explain things in the real world. When the Bible is errant when it attempts to explain things that would be considered scientific. And of course, it's absolutely wrong.
Genesis chapter 1 gets the ball rolling to prove that much is true. And it doesn't get any better or any more accurate further in.

So it's not as if a rational argument by a Theist can be entered into proclaiming their faith and Bible trumps the knowledge gleaned from true Scientific theory and fact.

(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It is because those judgements etc are subjective. Science can indeed tell us every possible way we could make these judgements, and the potential outcomes of any judgement. (We do this all of the time).

Well, even though science can help predict the outcome of our actions/judgments, it cannot make moral judgments (like whether euthanasia is right or wrong in a given context).

(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Science can in fact give you answers as to specific gods and the status of their existence.

I agree that science can rule out specific gods, but it cannot rule out theism in general, for example.

(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Your life already has a purpose, at the very least, to carry life further through time.

This isn't a good answer to why life in general exists or to why human life (again, in general) exists. One cannot say that life appeared to reproduce. Reproducing is just a way for life to perpetuate it's existence, but it isn't a purpose in and of itself.

Not that I'm not exactly asking "What is my purpose?", but "What is the purpose of life (in general)?".

(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Whatever else you want to add is okay, but understand that it is ultimately an assumption, because again, purpose and meaning are subjective.

Perhaps you're referring to one's individual life? I'm referring to life as a whole. Why is it that exists? I do not think science can answer whether life exists with a purpose or whether it's an accident. And I do not think purpose and meaning are necessarily subjective. There are objective truths, and one of those truths is whether life is an accident or not, and I don't think it is possible to discover this truth trough science.

(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not being able to answer a subjective question to your level of satisfaction is not a shortcoming of science that requires you (or us)to insert a god.

I don't insert a god, for example, just because science cannot answer a question of aesthetics.

(July 30, 2011 at 1:52 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The existance of morals can be explained perfectly well by science so I see no reason why aesthetics cant be either if anyone cares to do the legwork on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

The question was regarding moral judgments, not why morals exist.

Quote:That is the purpose of philosophy. By "Truth" I suppose he meant things like whether there is some objective purpose for human life,

Philosophers are about as worthless as preachers. They are just slightly more honest.

(July 30, 2011 at 4:24 pm)Emanuel Wrote: Perhaps you're referring to one's individual life? I'm referring to life as a whole. Why is it that exists? I do not think science can answer whether life exists with a purpose or whether it's an accident. And I do not think purpose and meaning are necessarily subjective. There are objective truths, and one of those truths is whether life is an accident or not, and I don't think it is possible to discover this truth trough science.

It already has been discovered. It was an accident. We don't know exactly how it happened, but what we do know is it happened on its own, not through the intervention of a supernatural being. Move the fuck on.