Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[The Grand Nudger]

How many times are you going to ask that question Steve?  You keep asking about what would happen when science can't provide an answer to a question - and specifically the question of origins..but as an ID'er...you obviously think that it has provided that very answer.

What gives?

[KevinM1]

I think you're using a few words wrong, but I think I get your gist.

While our current knowledge certainly has limits and current technology puts limits on our methodology and how far we can explore, the subjects of abiogenesis and the origin of the universe are not intrinsically outside science. If it happened in physical reality then we should be able to use science to analyze it.

And when science cannot provide an answer?

It keeps investigating and experimenting?

Honest question: are you aware that science is a process?  Because you act as though it isn't.

[Natachan]

I think you're using a few words wrong, but I think I get your gist.

While our current knowledge certainly has limits and current technology puts limits on our methodology and how far we can explore, the subjects of abiogenesis and the origin of the universe are not intrinsically outside science. If it happened in physical reality then we should be able to use science to analyze it.

And when science cannot provide an answer?

Then we need to look and understand why. Perhaps we are missing some fundamental understanding somewhere, such as when people bought into the idea of "ether" that planets moved through. Or perhaps it is due to some technological limitation. We don't just throw our hands up in defeat, we keep trying. We are only now beginning to understand the world around us and to demand immediate answers is illogical. This takes time.

But these things are not fundamentally outside the scope of science. Just because we don't have an answer yet does not mean there is not one. And with a lot of the missing bits in our knowledge the building blocks of understanding already exist within current scientific knowledge.

[Faith No More]

Hawking states in his book, “Philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

What an astonishing statement! He does not appear to understand the first thing about it, nor its commitment to the elementary rules of logical analysis. Hawking’s statement is itself a philosophical statement. It is manifestly not a statement of science; it is a philosophical statement about science. Therefore, because it says that philosophy is dead, it contradicts itself. It is a classic example of logical incoherence. Not only that, Hawking, insofar as he is interpreting and applying science to ultimate questions like the existence of God, is doing metaphysics. Saying philosophy is dead is very dangerous especially when you yourself engage in it.

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying. He's not saying that philosophy itself is useless. He's just saying that philosophers have failed to update their philosophies using the latest scientific findings, and I wholeheartedly agree. When was the last time you heard someone pontificating on the soul quote the latest neuroscientific findings? I've never heard one. I think this is what Hawking means when philsophy is dead. It's not that he's saying it's not useful. Scientists are well aware that there is philosophy behind science. He's saying that the philosopher's inability to keep up with modern knowledge leaves philosophy dying.

And careful with the talk of metaphysics. We don't take talk like that kindly 'round here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, it's a quote mine, already been addressed.  Don't know why Kingpin decided to legitimize it.

[SteveII]

Let's cut to the chase.

What does YEC have to do with anything?

[Aoi Magi]

And when science cannot provide an answer?

Keep searching instead of making up BS and calling it quits.



Besides, you need to understand, science doesn't actually create answers, it investigates probable answers and determines the most probable one.

[dyresand]

Let's cut to the chase.

What does YEC have to do with anything?

Because people who believe in YEC are dangerous when it comes to public school education.
There are no facts or evidence supporting YEC and many of the YEC claims have been debunked the evidence
for YEC doesn't exist. Those who believe in YEC attack only 1 form of dating method while there tons of others that are more
precise.

[Whateverist]

The very first sentence in the link I gave: Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The rest of the paragraph goes on to say the same things to varying degrees. 

No one has a problem with science and what it has discovered. The question is where does science stop? There is no way science can comment on what it means that it seems inextricable that life came from non-life or how incredibly complex the cell is. Science cannot comment on the existence of God, why the universe is fine-tuned, the existence of miracles, and a myriad of other things. Rhythm is right, it is a tool. It is not the source of all knowledge and certainly cannot be used to dismiss alternatives that may be true/probably/possible/not likely through other methods not conflicting with science.

Science generally stops where personal truths begin.  So my values, taste preferences and god belief (if I had any) are generally not appropriate places to apply science.  Science can't help me find an appropriate mate, select music I'll enjoy or help me find meaning in life.  

But when it comes to arriving at objective truth about impersonal reality, science is without an equal.  Your problem is you keep mistaken your private beliefs for objective truths.  You suffer from a category mistake.  Agreed?

[SteveII]

When I posted this in another thread, I got answers that ranged from a GIF laughing over and over, a suggestion that we need to look at the certain to be life on other planets and that this was simply a God of the Gaps argument. Can it really be dismissed so easily?

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ...