NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that people have regularly misunderstood and indeed insulted my intellegence on many occations in the thread previous, so I will attempt to make myself more clear in my statements

- Science cannot explain whether or not there is any higher meaning to the universe

- The reason for this is the scope of scientific discussion

- Science cannot place a pronuncement on whether or not the universe has any higher meaning on the universe in the same way that it cannot prove that love exists, or that a sunset is beautiful, or that "Have I got news for you" is funny. It is beyond its scope of scientific discussion.

- This does not mean that science is somehow "stupid" or "flawed" just that it is not the be all and end all of human understanding

- To claim that the universe has no higher meaning simply because science cannot find one is not a scientific postition. It is a philosophical one, known as Nhileism, and is thus not at all defensable or proveable as a universal truth

- This lack of science's ability to produce meaning or not leands no extra credence to religion, or religious understandings of the world.

- The meaning or ideas regarding the universe are not nessecarly based on a God

- Science cannot explain whether or not there is any higher meaning to the universe
The higher meaning is "Drink your Ovaltine." That's it.

- Science cannot place a pronuncement on whether or not the universe has any higher meaning on the universe in the same way that it cannot prove that love exists, or that a sunset is beautiful, or that "Have I got news for you" is funny. It is beyond its scope of scientific discussion.
Let me let you in on a little secret. Science, as of right now, can't prove people's subjective opinions on immaterial concepts.

- Science cannot place a pronuncement on whether or not the universe has any higher meaning on the universe in the same way that it cannot prove that love exists, or that a sunset is beautiful, or that "Have I got news for you" is funny. It is beyond its scope of scientific discussion.There is such a thing as soft-science. Stuff like psychology and all that. For example, we know now beyond a shadow of a doubt that Americans are crude & the British are funny :D - This does not mean that science is somehow "stupid" or "flawed" just that it is not the be all and end all of human understandingThe scientific method isn't 'smart'. It's a tool. It's got exactly the same shining wit as your kitchen sink.- To claim that the universe has no higher meaning simply because science cannot find one is not a scientific postition. It is a philosophical one, known as Nhileism, and is thus not at all defensable or proveable as a universal truthIt has nothing to do with Nihilism what so ever. Oh but what does it matter? Why do I bother? Stupid religious people never listen.. And there's no point in setting them straight.. I think I'll go hang myself now..

Anyway, the scientific method is a tool. Just like a pen is a tool. I'm sure you wouldn't be writing a similar post about pens, right?

- Science cannot explain whether or not there is any higher meaning to the universe

- Science cannot place a pronuncement on whether or not the universe has any higher meaning on the universe in the same way that it cannot prove that love exists, or that a sunset is beautiful, or that "Have I got news for you" is funny. It is beyond its scope of scientific discussion.

- To claim that the universe has no higher meaning simply because science cannot find one is not a scientific postition. It is a philosophical one, known as Nhileism, and is thus not at all defensable or proveable as a universal truth

- This lack of science's ability to produce meaning or not leands no extra credence to religion, or religious understandings of the world.

- The meaning or ideas regarding the universe are not nessecarly based on a God
I am not really sure what the point of this is. Science does not claim to make any judgements on the supernatural or things like the meaning of the universe. Science does not claim to understand the issues you mention.

There may be some who think it does, but people who feel Science should intefere with religion are just as misguided as those who feel that Religion should interfere with Science.

snip

- Science cannot place a pronuncement on whether or not the universe has any higher meaning on the universe in the same way that it cannot prove that love exists, or that a sunset is beautiful, or that "Have I got news for you" is funny. It is beyond its scope of scientific discussion.

snip
While I understand the rest of your arguments this one we can indeed start to test for the electrochemical brain effects reacting to comedy such as "have I got news for you"
The technology needed may be in its infancy but to assume it will always be so is naive

There is such a thing as soft-science. Stuff like psychology and all that. For example, we know now beyond a shadow of a doubt that Americans are crude & the British are funny :D The scientific method isn't 'smart'. It's a tool. It's got exactly the same shining wit as your kitchen sink.It has nothing to do with Nihilism what so ever. Oh but what does it matter? Why do I bother? Stupid religious people never listen.. And there's no point in setting them straight.. I think I'll go hang myself now..

Anyway, the scientific method is a tool. Just like a pen is a tool. I'm sure you wouldn't be writing a similar post about pens, right?

1. Philosophy and Theology are also "soft-science".
2. You do not know that "beyond a shadow of a doubt", just making that statement prooves any mental concept of science you have constructed is FUBAR
3. You're correct on the scientific method.
4. It is nihilism. Nihilism is not just confined to a concept of pessimism.
5. It's pretty funny that you seem so smart, but still seem not to have been able to fathom exactly what the thread starter is saying.... Yet by opening your mouth prooving each point he makes.

1. Philosophy and Theology are also "soft-science".
2. You do not know that "beyond a shadow of a doubt", just making that statement prooves any mental concept of science you have constructed is FUBARHumour is wasted on you, isn't it? - Anyway, see the last sentence. Perhaps that will help you understand why I opened with a rediculous & selfcontradicting statement.4. It is nihilism. Nihilism is not just confined to a concept of pessimism.Nihilism; the philosophy proposing that existence - in particular human life - is pointless. Lack of religion, atheism, or a belief that the universe has no purpose, is in no way the same thing as Nihilism.5. It's pretty funny that you seem so smart, but still seem not to have been able to fathom exactly what the thread starter is saying.... Yet by opening your mouth prooving each point he makes.While I suspect I don't appear all that clever to you, you're quite right about me not getting the point of this thread. If that wasn't obvious, I apologise.

Nice RIP by the way. I don't get nearly enough of those ;)

OK first a disclaimer--I am a Born Again Christian.

Science is not SUPPOSED to provide meaning. No real scientist would ever attempt to tell you the meaing of something--other then as it related to pure facts in a proven and observable setting.

It seems to me the thread starter has confused the concept of 'Truth' with fact.

Science is not in opposition to God--it is in opposition to ignorance.

Science used in theological debate is flawed--theology used in scientific debate is flawed.

Any educated person knows that science does not discount God--it doesnt even bother--there are more pressing issues for science to concern itself with.


The reasoning behind a phenom that is not in the scientific realm--that is philosophy.

I take it the poster is simply agitated by the misuse of science in some debates---feck it. Ignore it.

Science=Facts not meanings. Once a meaning becomes a fact it ceases to be intangible and becomes a thing not a meaning.

Oh and US stupid religious people appreciate your time.:rolleyes:

It seems that people have regularly misunderstood and indeed insulted my intellegence on many occations in the thread previous, so I will attempt to make myself more clear in my statements

- Science cannot explain whether or not there is any higher meaning to the universe

Which indicates that the current accepted and prevailing notion, do to lack of non-concurring evidence, is that there is no purpose. You can apply the scientific method in an attempt to find purpose, people have been trying for years. It's called Physics.

- The reason for this is the scope of scientific discussion

Nothing is outside of the scope of scientific discussion.

- Science cannot place a pronuncement on whether or not the universe has any higher meaning on the universe in the same way that it cannot prove that love exists, or that a sunset is beautiful, or that "Have I got news for you" is funny. It is beyond its scope of scientific discussion.

When dealing with intangibles, like funny or beautiful, you are not dealing with a set of limited, testable data. Science would analyze this as "Why is the susnset beautiful when it is simply a fiery orb completing it's hemispherical portion of rotation in a given time period?" Can you explain why it's beautiful in any tangible way?

- This does not mean that science is somehow "stupid" or "flawed" just that it is not the be all and end all of human understanding

Nothing is the end all be all. Science just provides processed data that can be interpolated and used. Religion and gods don't have that going for them.

- To claim that the universe has no higher meaning simply because science cannot find one is not a scientific postition. It is a philosophical one, known as Nhileism, and is thus not at all defensable or proveable as a universal truth

The philosophy of Nihilism means that there is no consequence, not no purpose. Science is not Nihilistic.

- This lack of science's ability to produce meaning or not leands no extra credence to religion, or religious understandings of the world.

I will agree with this statement.

- The meaning or ideas regarding the universe are not nessecarly based on a God

For the most part, ideas of human purpose, ideas of the reason for the universe and everything, generally come from some sort of religio-social source, be it the Bible, the Koran, or the statement "It's tradition". Most of these philosophies are built on religious or social dogma.

The higher meaning is "Drink your Ovaltine." That's it.


Let me let you in on a little secret. Science, as of right now, can't prove people's subjective opinions on immaterial concepts.
Science may not be able to prove my subjective opinions on immaterial concepts but Ovaltine is tastey an that's a FACT mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. MAlty.

- Science cannot explain whether or not there is any higher meaning to the universe

Neither can religion. Religion posits the existence of intensive meaning, but it doesn't offer an explanation. Instead, it generally falls back to the position itself is a matter of faith, and that this "ultimate reality" is unknowable. That isn't an explanation; it's an unsupported argument. Explanations entail the knowledge of something, not a statement that knowledge is impossible.

- Science cannot place a pronuncement on whether or not the universe has any higher meaning on the universe in the same way that it cannot prove that love exists, or that a sunset is beautiful, or that "Have I got news for you" is funny. It is beyond its scope of scientific discussion.

Whereas religion makes the pronouncement but doesn't support it.

As far as the bit about humor, once again I refer you to the work of Robert Provine and the more culturally-oriented work of Koestler. Koestler studied the ways in which humor in particular was tied to societal predilections, and Provine did more universalist work in neurophysiology demonstrating the common reactions to experiences of beauty, humor, etc. More to the point, though, the things you're referring to are subjective matters; what things a particular person finds humorous or beautiful varies. In other words, humor and beauty aren't intensive properties, but are reactions by a human being to them. They cannot be quantified; there is no unit of beauty, precisely because beauty doesn't exist apart from a judgment made by a human mind.

Look, I can make up something called guarthistenum. According to guarthistenum, unicorns nibble bartlett pears every day at 4:00 on the dot. I can assert that unicorn nibbling cannot be measured and that unicorns are invisible and leave no footprints. I can further state that there are billions of bartlett pears in the world. We've all seen them. But where do they all go? Unless this can be disproven by having direct knowledge of where every single bartlett pear in the world goes, then the guarthistenian assertion that they are being nibbled into non-existence by unknowable, unmeasurable unicorns stands.

Does this lead to any knowledge of anything at all? What does it affect? It's an empty, unsupported assertion made entirely upon untestable hypotheses.

Anybody can pronounce anything they like. If one person does it and nobody believes him, we call it delusion. If one person does it and 50 people believe him, we call it a cult. If one person does it and 50,000,000 people believe him, we call it a religion. Pronouncing something obviously doesn't make it true, real, or even useful.

- This does not mean that science is somehow "stupid" or "flawed" just that it is not the be all and end all of human understanding

What does religion lead us to understand besides the precepts of the religion itself? What is the exclusive province of religion that leads to an understanding that cannot take place without it?

- To claim that the universe has no higher meaning simply because science cannot find one is not a scientific postition. It is a philosophical one, known as Nhileism, and is thus not at all defensable or proveable as a universal truth

Waitaminnit... you're saying that Nihilism is indefensible because it doesn't believe in an intrinsic meaning to the universe? Why is that indefensable? Why is it anymore innately defensible to claim that there is higher meaning and universal truth? The fact that some people believe in a thing and others don't says nothing about whether or not the thing really exists. The majority of the human population has at one time or another believed that stepping on the shadows of royalty would bring doom, that comets were harbingers of disaster, and that the stars were the campfires of distant tribes that lived in the sky. That didn't say anything as to whether the beliefs were themselves valid, nor about the true nature of the things believed in.

What about those who don't believe in "higher meaning" but that meaning is something that we ourselves assign. Is this also "indefenable nihilism"?

- This lack of science's ability to produce meaning or not leands no extra credence to religion, or religious understandings of the world.

And yet science has produced meaning, at the very least insofar as it has allowed us to understand the world in ways that create new and meaningful interaction with it. Science is the basis of technology, and clearly technology has produced meaning. Technology allows for the exchange of ideas, such as the ones that go on here, that would have been quite impossible without it. Does this alone not have meaning? How about the cure, even the eradication, of diseases? Are these not things that have changed the meaning of individual lives several billion times over? The fact that those with access to technology can now live into their 80's instead of likely dying off before the age of 50... meaningless? Or how about the very basic fact that we understand the constitution and behavior of matter itself? This has no bearing upon our view of the world's meaning?

Again, "meaning" is being used in a very narrow sense, particularly in the sense of ontology. This sort of ontological assertion is itself the product of a particular philosophy, just as much a philosophy as nihilism or logical positivism. What makes one defenaible and another indefensable if not for some sort of basis in reality that allows for these assertions to be tested?

- The meaning or ideas regarding the universe are not nessecarly based on a God

What other things did you have in mind? You'd stated that science doesn't produce meaning.

Which indicates that the current accepted and prevailing notion, do to lack of non-concurring evidence, is that there is no purpose. You can apply the scientific method in an attempt to find purpose, people have been trying for years. It's called Physics.

Physics define form and function, not purpose.



Nothing is outside of the scope of scientific discussion.

Anything which is non-empirical is outside of scientific dicussion.



When dealing with intangibles, like funny or beautiful, you are not dealing with a set of limited, testable data. Science would analyze this as "Why is the susnset beautiful when it is simply a fiery orb completing it's hemispherical portion of rotation in a given time period?" Can you explain why it's beautiful in any tangible way?[/qupte]

Science would not analyse it at all. It only deals with limited testable data. It's not concerned with the intangible [not concerned however does not mean it is proof against the intangible].


[QUOTE=Balipo]
Nothing is the end all be all. Science just provides processed data that can be interpolated and used. Religion and gods don't have that going for them.

The first part is correct [the second part will be ignored for being outside of realm of this topic]; however, your statement here contradicts several other statements you made by claiming science can "analyze" this stuff....



The philosophy of Nihilism means that there is no consequence, not no purpose. Science is not Nihilistic.

He didn't claim "science" as being nihilistic... Perhapse you need to reread what he said.

As for your tripe on Nihilism, you've missed most of its 20th century evolution, most common now as Existential Nihilism which (from the EOP) is defined as "Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose."


I will agree with this statement.

Of course you will...


For the most part, ideas of human purpose, ideas of the reason for the universe and everything, generally come from some sort of religio-social source, be it the Bible, the Koran, or the statement "It's tradition". Most of these philosophies are built on religious or social dogma.

Or from one's own self....