Well...

It lets us to (in principle) know everything that CAN be known. What's the point of addressing things that CAN'T be known? The interesting question is, is there ANOTHER way to know things that is excluded from science. The answer is NO (at least, there's no evidence otherwise. It would be difficult to describe demonstrable knowledge that is excluded from scientific examination).

These abstract notions are great but there is also a practice case against ignorance: It can cheapen your ride through life.

A concrete example: dosing mushrooms on a low mountain summit near the base of a great pine. I can do this and be amazed by the tree. I can feel its spirit as something animated and other. I can commune with it this way. This is a great experience that enriched my life.

On another night with the same tree: I recall my botany and biochem training. I appreciate how the tree has self-organized out of invisible gas. Once gas molecule at a time into sugar. One sugar at a time into cellulose. Strands of cellulose organized in an (ordinarily) unfathomable level of intricacy. The branches burst out at regular angles to the next row down under the control of embryonic auxin signaling feedback. The branches on those branches do the same so that the whole tree has a kind of fractal organization. I think of this and all the energy required to make it happen and I look at my campfire. How easy it is to release this energy by re-liberating the gas. This was also a great experience that enriched my life.

So I guess my point is, closing doors for your mind only limits the richness of your experience of life. Just in case you only get one ride perhaps it is best to keep as many doors open as you can stand.

Only someone who hasn’t thought very much about this question would need to ask it. Even in our practical everyday lives, we address things that we can’t know:

The criminal justice system is a good example. Physical and scientific evidence are often insufficient to determine guilt or innocence, so juries rely on circumstantial evidence, motive, etc. in order to assign guilt or innocence. In certain crimes, it may be scientifically impossible, even in theory, to determine whether or not a particular individual committed a particular crime, yet juries must routinely make such determinations.

Due to the chaotic nature of complex physical systems, the future cannot be known. Predictions about the stock market, the weather, natural disasters, sociological phenomena, etc. cannot ever be 100% accurate, not even in theory. In spite of the fact that we can’t know the future, we make predictions and take actions based on those predictions.

We cannot know the minds and thoughts of other people. Technically, we can’t even know if other people have minds at all. Yet we communicate with others, interact with others, and establish relationships with others, all based on the understanding that we can know something about their minds.

We can’t know if physical reality exists. The “primacy of matter” paradigm can’t be proven any more than the “primacy of consciousness” paradigm, yet most people accept that physical reality exists as something outside of consciousness. They address physical reality as axiomatic, in spite of the fact that the nature of reality can’t be known.

Such things are not about "knowing," they are just a social game we play. The "point" of this social game is that "justice" is something we believe is important.


Obviously, knowledge can be had about statistics. Casinos "know" they will win a certain percentage of bets, with a certain variance--and they KNOW that they DON'T KNOW which PARTICULAR bets they will win or lose. This is an excellent and practical (i.e., scientific) management of knowing what we know and knowing what we don't know--and knowing the difference between the two.


That's right. We make our guesses. Sometimes they seem to have utility, sometimes not.



I think you have misunderstood my point. People have charged science with failure when it doesn't (and perhaps can't) give them answers to questions they would like answered. My point is that if they want answers that are IMPOSSIBLE, then that's not science's fault, it's their fault, for wanting what--apparently--the universe cannot give to them.

What's worse though, people are so insistent at having want they want, that they will then begin to MAKE THINGS UP as answers--and pretend they are real answers, so they can pretend that they're satisfied.

^noone is charging science with anything at all. I dont for the life of me know why people always say that when certain practical limitations surrounding science are brought up. It seems a way to attempt to lessen what other people are saying here. It is not that simple..noone is charging science with failure or saying anything is sciences fault. The first thing we have to do is stop acting as if anyone is saying that.

There are questions that science cannot address..saying that that is my fault and not sciences just sounds rediculous. It is not anyone fault.. that is just the way it is, and people need to be able to accept and deal with that otherwise they are deluded IMO.

"My point is that if they want answers that are IMPOSSIBLE, then that's not science's fault, it's their fault, for wanting what--apparently--the universe cannot give to them."

So you admit that there are answers that are impossible to grasp at this point in our current scientific understanding?..are you angry becasue some people actaully attempt to adress these questions philisophically? I am sorry SWIMfriend but I just dont really understand what your point is here beyond the fact that you seem to agree that science does not have the answers to fundamental questions surrounding the nature of reality.

The way I see it when I read people explain it that way is scientists(not all, I am generalizing) live in a somewhat limited or imaginary box world where it is assumed that what is "known" is exactly the way that things really are. I agree that that is a useful approach and that we learn alot from doing that, but the TRUTH is that we just dont know eveyrthing and our current model of reality is only that..a model..and an extremely limited model at that.

Chaotic natural systems, such as weather, are not statistically equivalent to games of chance. Weather cannot be predicted on the basis of statistical/historical patterns.

Also, you’re contradicting yourself. You previously suggested that there is no point to addressing what can’t be known. Now you suggest it is important to manage what we don’t know.



I don’t think that people generally turn to science to answer questions that science can’t answer. Most non-scientists and professional scientists understand the limits of science. Few claim that science has the answer to every question.

Every answer that human beings produce is a “made up” answer. Even scientific conclusions are “made up” answers to questions about the nature of the physical world. So if the general public is guilty of making up answers, then so are scientists. The difference is that scientists base their “made up” answers on careful observation and experimentation. I’m not sure if a “real answer” can even be known.

Sorry. Mis-communication is occurring.

People seem to say that science is NOT SUFFICIENT (or flawed in some way), as a human tool, because it cannot answer all (possible) questions one might ask. I say that science can answer all questions that CAN be answered, and that there is no use in "complaining" about not being able to answer questions which CANNOT inherently be answered.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. I don't think people fault science because it can't answer all possible questions.

If anything, I think people become defensive when scientists do the opposite of what you're suggesting and claim that science can answer questions that it obviously cannot. (Remember the Stephen Hawking "fairy tale" thread?)

The method of science provides the best objective "answers" to questions we can ask about objective realities.

But what is "asking a question?" Asking a question really means that someone wants "a response" that will "fit into" their personal conceptual frameworks. But there's no guarantee that someone's personal conceptual framework has any objective value or meaning (other than to themselves). You can ask what size shoe god wears. You can complain that science can NEVER PROVIDE AN ANSWER to the question. But...your question is junk.

It may be that questions about "the nature of reality" are also a sort of junk.

Science can answer all the questions that science can answer, not all the questions that CAN be answered because there are several ways to answer questions in different realms of existence.

I dont need scientific validation (and I dont think it would be possible) to decide the best course of action in a relationship with a partner, for example, through science. I will respond using things such as emotions and other "finer" aspects of my subjective perception to interpret the reality around me, and give some kind of answer to my given situation where I decide the best course of action. And while it is in a way just in my subjective perception, it has very direct impacts on "objective reality" (whatever that is) and in my way of dealing with it, so therefore other unscientific forms of knowledge can give answers to "objective reality".

I think science is an amazing tool/method for generating knowledge and interacting with reality in many other levels where I certainly would not be trusting my emotions or whatever but rather will listen to the cold scientific data instead.

Each thing in its place, we need to use our different ways of interacting with reality in an integrated toolbox that is directed with critical thinking.

I suppose it's the above that most of my responses were meant to address.

Is there "a lot" that science can't provide us with? SURE! If there is a particular fantasy you wish to make up in your mind, to address internal desires and conceptual holes you personally hold, then sure: science can't provide that. You will have to create fantasy answers to your fantasy questions. What you WANT is only something in response to a FANTASY you have created in your OWN MIND, about what is "important." Just because something occurs to you as being "important" doesn't mean anything...fundamentally. It's just stuff that's in one person's head.

Is there anything "beyond" science (meaning, is there anything beyond the objective)? Yes. Fantasy is beyond the objective. But fantasy can be seen as individual delusion/illusion--a quirk of the way brains work. Objectively, most people don't see it as something "important" or "useful" for consideration.

There is nothing "real and fundamental" that is beyond the objective. We use the word "objective," and the process of "science" to describe the objective. The interaction is complete because we SAY it is complete: we DEFINE IT that way. There is no "beyond the objective," because everything we can confront and describe we assign as part of the "objective."

So I will agree: science cannot provide everything we want, or want to know; because many things that people want, or want to know, are a product of their personal fantasies.

EDIT: So, IOW, the workings of the brain are a cyber-space, in which "anything" can exist--including pure fantasy: things that have no connection to external reality. That is apparently very useful! But at the same time, it is a source of delusion. Ultimately, it's generally agreed that it's most desirable if the workings of our mind can be well ALIGNED with external reality. It's there that science works, and anything "not science" does not work.

Are we really talking about that?

But even so, I'm not sure I agree with you. The "best course of action in a relationship" will be a reflection of all the emotional states of the people involved, and their plans, desires, etc. If one could have a full perception and understand of all those elements, one could see the "best course of action." In a generalized way, that is a scientific process.

Why would we not talk about that? You are talking in absolutes ("ALL questions", etc), im giving you an example of where it is not so.

How can an unreproducible emotional experience and intuitive decision (which is often how one responds in given situations in a relationship and leads to direct impact on the objective world) be, in a generalized way, the scientific method?

Furthermore, this bears repeating which--despite the fact that it is IN OUR FACE ALMOST CONTINUOUSLY--people amazingly seem to not notice: Science has done AWESOME MAGIC. It has not just done...lotsa stuff. It has done AWESOME MAGIC. While, at the same time, "other methods" have done UTTERLY NOTHING--not "lotsa stuff," not "some stuff," not "a few things." NOTHING.

Science does MAGIC. All other things do NOTHING. Amazingly, people are not CLEAR on that!

People should be clear that the ENGINE of the human mind is FANTASY: you see something, and you make some kind of "assumption" based on perhaps earlier experience. So, if you are completely naive, and you learn that if you wave your hand a small wind blows, and if you feel a great wind, you assume a great hand somewhere has waved. That is FANTASY. It's the way our minds work, and it's the ONLY way they work--we can, really, do no better: we take what is already IN OUR BRAINS and try to apply it to NEW THINGS we confront. That's the FUNCTION our brains perform, and, for living as an animal, it actually works quite well.

Science is a further step, in which we can use that same function to HONE THOSE FANTASIES DOWN until they seem to correlate well with "external reality." That's all. That's all that's going on.

But if you don't realize that, then you can become endlessly sidetracked in fantasy.

Because the conditions of a person could, in principle, be described and listed objectively, and certain rules (rules people would like to use in their "emotional calculus" to deal with their personal realities) can be applied.

Science is: perception/observation, analysis, testing, and re-evaluation. We either USE that process (which can be applied to anything which can be described and demonstrated, such as emotions and relationships), and zero in on truthful and useful "facts" and "processes," or we have fantasy and confusion. There is no other way.

To whom is your comment directed, because I dont see the relationship to what we are talking about?

What do you mean "other methods have done nothing" ? What other methods in what situation to answer what question? Its as if youre talking to people who are defending some weird esoterism vs science, but nobody here is saying or thinking similar, we all recognize the great impact science has on the areas within it's reach.

Also, again your talking in absolutes, and seems to me pretty incorrect. I suggest you maybe think about how you are communicating your thoughts so that they do not appear as The Truth and if others dont agree, they are deluded. We've seen that too often here, its very one-sided and not a very good base if you want genuine interaction in a public forum such as this.

^ The above response was a continuation of my response to the fractal enchantment quote I reintroduced a few posts ago.

If they could be described by science, is merely a supposition, speculation. You dont know either way, and neither do I. What matters though, is that in this moment many actions with direct ("good" ) impact on observable reality are taken and yet based on unreproducible subjective states. You might be able to observe and analyse superficial parts of the whole situation, and yet, many of your actions can be based on many things which are beyond the reach of the analysis promoted by rational scientific thinking. Again, integrated toolbox is the way I see as more appropriate of looking at it. Dont you?

There is a near-continual raising on the Nexus a somewhat "false dichotomy" (IMO) about science vs. "other systems of knowing." Things such as "science doesn't supply all the answers" and "there are other ways to know things besides science" are often said.

The point I wish to make addresses that, and it is this: Science is EVERYTHING, and there is no process of knowing other than science. This is true because:

1) Human minds function ONLY as a generator of fantasy. The response of the human mind is to..."come up with something" based on whatever is available to the mind at the time. There is nothing that assures that the human interpretation of perception is "correct." In fact, there are endless examples of how first interpretations are almost always "incorrect."

2) Science is the process of TESTING the results derived in #1 against reality, to SEE HOW THE GENERATED RESPONSE WORKS. That is all.

Science HAS been made into a significant social structure--with all the "unpleasantness" often found in political structures. But the fundamental process of science is used by EVERYONE, ALMOST CONTINUOUSLY, for all of history (but unfortunately, it took a LONG TIME until people realized it would be especially useful if it were codified, formalized, and memorialized/documented into a communal process that could be built on).

Science is the process of observation-analysis-testing-reevaluation. We all use it on everything we do all the time; and we do so to try to be sure our internal cyber-space is aligned with external reality. If we DON'T use it, then we're dealing mostly with fantasy: the stuff of our mind, our cyber-space, that is generated by merely scrambling together the (limited and arbitrary) contents of our minds.

idk, I love science but this seems extreme. What about maths? Maths cannot be reduced to science and maths also accomplish MAGIC.