The Limits of Science

Originally posted by finnegan
Students who apply critical thinking could learn a lot by challenging the videos and establishing refutations.

Students who accept what they are told uncritically will learn that they were right before they watched the video and indeed that nothing can challenge the authority of their teacher.

This gives their teacher considerable power to influence them in whatever directions may amuse him this week.

Would you like to start by challenging the video linked below and establishing refutations?

God's amazing design

YouTube

Originally posted by C Hess
How everything began is a very interesting question that many scientists wrestle with. What we are all here for can indeed not be answered by science, because any answer we give will be untestable. How will you device experiments that can test the accuracy of your answer, and that others can repeat to duplicate your results? If you can't, it's not really a scientific question.

The reason the question: "why are you here?" Is moot, is because it's fundamentally narcisstic and so inaccurate that most responses just pander to it, instead of addressing it.

I give you: it's not about you. You are a vehicle for your ever shortening DNA. For the DNA to not shrink to non-existence, it needs to melt with new DNA... Hence your sex drive. For this to work, you need fuel... Hence your BBQ drive, etc.

And whether he DNA uses you, a flower or a fly is neither here nor there.
Everything other than the DNA's non-willed drive to lengthen is a side show which doesn't matter.

Originally posted by vivify
By "in science" I assume you mean scientists. Right? If so, can you give examples of scientists (who aren't religious) that believe science answers the philosophical questions you posted?

Given that he's been replying to other threads and not this one, I take that AppleChess' answer is no.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
One should not confuse some stuff (famous) scientists say in the media with what is actually being done by them and others in the context of scientific research.

Perhaps if they don't want people to listen to them, they should keep their pie hole closed.

Originally posted by AppleChess
This seems to have come up in another thread where it was said I do not take science seriously. However, I have a strong backing in the sciences as an Engineer.

But, I would submit this to your reading,

The Limits of Science by Peter Medawar, and Oxford immunologist who won the Nobel Prize in medicine.

Here is a quote to just wet your t ...[text shortened]... of Neuroscience[/i] argue against the belief of "science explains everything" calling it naive.

"What are we all here for? What is the point of living?" Even such seemingly intractable questions can be approached to some extent using some aspects of science. Careful observation, trying things out (experiment), seeing the consequences of choices by others, seeing the effects of alternative choices (cause and effect) etc.

Originally posted by JS357
"What are we all here for? What is the point of living?" Even such seemingly intractable questions can be approached to some extent using some aspects of science. Careful observation, trying things out (experiment), seeing the consequences of choices by others, seeing the effects of alternative choices (cause and effect) etc.

It seems the tendency, at least for those observing the true scientists, to use scientific theory as a club to ward off those with less scientific answers to those unanswerable questions.