Science_ a collection of successful recipes ?

Originally posted by JS357
My response to someone who says a "why" question can't be answered by science is, what would be the earmarks of a good answer? Would it produce a sense of satisfaction? That's a psychological answer. Is it that the answer increases our ability to predict events? That's perhaps a scientific answer, worth revisiting down below, but let's look at the question abo e asked, other than where there is something? It that answer satisfactory?

I think that's a good post.
I think an implicit point in:

“...Analogously, of all the conceivable universes, there is obviously at least one where the question is eventually asked by some being in that universe, "Why are the rules of the universe the way they are?" We are in one. ...”

could be that, hypothetically, if we where in a universe where the rules of the universe are different from the actual rules in THIS [non-hyperthetical] universe, we would still ask "Why are the rules of the universe the way they are?". IF the rules are just brute facts then that question would be meaningless in the sense that there would be no “why” they are the way they are.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I think that's a good post.
I... hypothetically, if we where in a universe where the rules of the universe are different from the actual rules in THIS [non-hyperthetical] universe, we would still ask "Why are the rules of the universe the way they are?". IF the rules are just brute facts then that question would be meaningless in the sense that there would be no “why” they are the way they are.

Good point. An equivalent question is, "Why am I here in this universe and not one that has different rules?" Well, anywhere you are is "here" to you, so the question becomes not "Why am I here?" But "Why am I anywhere?" One reply is, "Why not?"🙂

Originally posted by JS357
Why is there something rather than nothing?

Yes, when I was 12 or so I asked myself this question too, and concluded that it is such a profound question precisely because it is meaningless - and a great deal of metaphysical questions actually boil down to this question which so elegantly illustrates the pointlessness of asking metaphysical questions (though I did not know the word "metaphysics" at the time).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, when I was 12 or so I asked myself this question too, and concluded that it is such a profound question precisely because it is meaningless - and a great deal of metaphysical questions actually boil down to this question which so elegantly illustrates the pointlessness of asking metaphysical questions (though I did not know the word "metaphysics" at the time).

Wow, what an efficient clipping away of my post, to where such things usually end up: "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" I'm glad you spotted that.

Originally posted by mtthw
I think he's talking about "not why the rules of physics are the way they are". Which is true - science is good at working out what the rules are. Why the rules are is probably out of scope.

The creation of life, though, doesn't appear to be in that category. There's no reason to believe that how it can happen is any more mysterious than lots of things that used to be considered mysterious before science explained them.

My basic point was :- Science is a collection of successful Recipes. In other words why the rules are the way they are does not seem to be explainable by Science. During the course of exchanges of views I responded to Kazet on 15th Feb. that one question that is not yet answered is the Creation of Life in a lab.starting from inorganic chemicals. I hope that clears the issue.
More questions on these lines( about rules) can be innumerable, for example , Right Hand Thumb Rule of Electromagnetism. Why the Electromagnetic field is clockwise ( in the direction of fingers of a fist of right hand)when the current in the wire flows in the direction of the right hand thumb etc. Why it is not anticlockwise ? I mean Science describes the physical phenomena reasonably well and is able to demonstrate the validity of its various rules and make the rules work for Mankind and so on but fails to penetrate any mystery like origin of life,nature of reality,what is Mind etc. By simply calling these questions as metaphysical or"senseless" , does not deprive them of importance.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
My basic point was :- Science is a collection of successful Recipes. In other words why the rules are the way they are does not seem to be explainable by Science. During the course of exchanges of views I responded to Kazet on 15th Feb. that one question that is not yet answered is the Creation of Life in a lab.starting from inorganic chemicals. I hope th ...[text shortened]... y calling these questions as metaphysical or"senseless" , does not deprive them of importance.

The creation of artificial life seems to me a tremendous engineering challenge, but I see no reason to assume that it can't be done at some point in the future.

The right hand rule follows straightforwardly from Maxwell's equations.

By simply calling these questions as metaphysical or"senseless" , does not deprive them of importance.

If you don't want to go into metaphysics then you're going to have to be more specific with your questions. If it can't be measured, then it's an irrelevant question. Why? Because for every purely metaphysical proposition the inverse statement is equally likely. We have no way to investigate metaphysical properties.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The creation of artificial life seems to me a tremendous engineering challenge, but I see no reason to assume that it can't be done at some point in the future.

The right hand rule follows straightforwardly from Maxwell's equations.

[b]By simply calling these questions as metaphysical or"senseless" , does not deprive them of importance.

If ...[text shortened]... erse statement is equally likely. We have no way to investigate metaphysical properties.[/b]

Then you seem to agree that the scope of scientific enquiry is limited and it is best confined to making many more successful recipes rather than probing mysteries of a "metaphysical" nature ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Then you seem to agree that the scope of scientific enquiry is limited and it is best confined to making many more successful recipes rather than probing mysteries of a "metaphysical" nature ?

Nothing can probe mysteries of a metaphysical nature. Science does not and should not attempt to do this.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Nothing can probe mysteries of a metaphysical nature. Science does not and should not attempt to do this.

add " Science cannot" and then your statement will be totally factual.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
add " Science cannot" and then your statement will be totally factual.

"Nothing can..."

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Does Science really answer our difficult querries or does it simply help us go through our life without many mishaps,without much ill health,with some solace of having lived well etc. following tried and tested algorithms formulated by Science and Scientific method without
getting an answer to Why rather than to How?
The really difficult querries like ve been delimited by our Scientific Method.
So is Science a collection of successful recipes ?

If you disagree with the advances of science, just take a time machine trip to say, the year 1000 and see if you like living under those conditions. The last 1000 years of scientific advancement has put men on the moon and more to come if we don't off ourselves in the next 100 years, discoveries are happening at an ever increasing rate, we are really bootstrapping ourselves science wise. Take a quick look at this accidental discovery, just as a quick example:

http://www.kens5.com/news/Researchers-stumble-upon--116402394.html

Take a look at PhyOrg.com for instance, you will see new discoveries make daily there.

Why don't you study the accomplishments of science rather than trying to tear down what hasn't yet been accomplished? Some questions will never be answered, so what? The big questions have not been answered by religion either.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If you disagree with the advances of science, just take a time machine trip to say, the year 1000 and see if you like living under those conditions. The last 1000 years of scientific advancement has put men on the moon and more to come if we don't off ourselves in the next 100 years, discoveries are happening at an ever increasing rate, we are really bootst ...[text shortened]... will never be answered, so what? The big questions have not been answered by religion either.

I never tried to belittle achievements of science-these are immense. All I am saying is that it is not the Panacea to all our ills nor it is the Answer to our every riddle.Science suffers from its innate inability to use observation/experimentation/logic to solve questions which are not structured to be solved using these tools.The basic questions like the nature of reality/nature of life etc. are not structured problems but they won't go away just because we go on parroting that these are metaphysics and hence silly. These problems require not tested recipes or structured solutions but a different approach.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
"Nothing can..."

The words " Nothing can " are not scientific ! There have been numerous attempts to solve our most troubling questions from ancient times.Philosophy- let alone Spiritualism- has beenat these problems since long and has to some extent been successful.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The words " Nothing can " are not scientific ! There have been numerous attempts to solve our most troubling questions from ancient times.Philosophy- let alone Spiritualism- has beenat these problems since long and has to some extent been successful.

“nothing can” “probing mysteries of a "metaphysical" nature” because no flawless logic nor observation can probe something that, implicitly by definition, cannot be ever observed nor logically deduced.


Oh, and there is nothing “unscientific” about the above logic so to talk about “nothing can” isn't “unscientific” as you said.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The words " Nothing can " are not scientific ! There have been numerous attempts to solve our most troubling questions from ancient times.Philosophy- let alone Spiritualism- has beenat these problems since long and has to some extent been successful.

To which extent specifically?