NationStates Jolt Archive

Your answers don't reveal your philosophies? You've reached meta-hypocrisy.

I'm saying that some answer require philosophy, you are saying they do not. I am using philosophy to evidence my answer. You are using philosophy and unintentionally evidencing my answer.

My answer should instead reflect what, your philosophy?

No, if your answer was correct, your answer would reflect no philosophy at all, but instead a purely scientific position. Your position is not scientific and thus evidences that some questions cannot be answered scientifically.

My positions is, and has been, this:

Science does not now and may not ever answer all questions, but making up supernatural "answers" (or picking popular, pre-existing supernatural stories to call "answers") is an act of neediness, not reason. I don't present that as scientific law, only my observation.

Not, may not, will not. The fundamentals of science make this a truism. Meanwhile, with what senses did you observe evidence of a lack of God. I'm quite curious about your 'observation'.

At one point, we had little capacity to reason, and we thought the bears were gods. As we developed, we thought the lightning came from Zeus (or whatever religious top-guy was in charge for that culture). Over the years, religion has had to become more and more abstract, losing claim to things it said it explained.

How some have looked at religious pursuits or even most does not suggest that is all that it is. Some may get glimpses into the absolute nature of reality and last I checked you have no way of evidencing or observing that they haven't.

Reason would tell you that it is not possible to KNOW something doesn't exist, only that it does. I gather no concrete evidence that a bug that eats metal doesn't exist. However, if I see a bunch of bugs eating metal, that's pretty concrete evidence that they do. Given that, it's pretty much impossible that you've single-handedly disproven all religious views, particularly since many of them only posit a higher being rather than being assured of one.

As long as there are people who need to believe in the unmoved mover, and that He/She/It gives a crap about them, religion will always have a way to pay its bills.

Meanwhile, science will plod along, sometimes down the right path, sometime wrong, but hey...sometimes non-fiction just takes longer.

Everything is based on completely unscientific assumption. It's amusing that you've found a question that can't be answered by science and, meanwhile, you're arguing that it can't be proven that science cannot answer all questions. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the fundamentals of science should be aware that science limits itself to make itself more useful. The limit is necessary and makes it so it cannot EVER answer all questions.

You have a limited imagination as to how things can be observed, but regardless, science makes no pretense to say that everything can be observed with current methods.

No, in fact, it is a scientific position that even if all things can be observed, we would have no way of knowing it. The fact is that it is impossible to know what you do not know. It's kind of the way things work. It's unfortunate that no matter how many times this explained to you that you cannot understand.

Some of us just feel that, for those things that cannot be addressed presently, its neither necessary nor wise to cling to comforting fictions like religion. If there always remain things we can't examine, so be it, but that doesn't excuse committing yourself to baseless "answers".

Amusing, but this has nothing to do with point other than exposing your own bigotry. Not all religion is religion of the gaps.

You say science "relies" on the observable, but it is a sign of the honesty of science that it does so.

In the end, even if its discovered that there is no truly objective reality, it will likely be science that delivers this answer.
Still not addressing the point. We are talking about whether science can answer all questions not whether religion of the gaps is a good idea.

I have seen more reasonable discussion (at this point, certainly still speculation) about the origin of life on earth, and the conditions that brought about our universe as observed, from science than I have from religion.

Until we're in a position to start making test planets and universes, its still a better lead than Zeus, Body Thetans, and God with Zombie Son.

At least, you've begun to expose that yours is a position of bigotry, not reason. All here who have been arguing about science answering all questions have been doing so while *gasp* simply talking about the needs and questions that science does and does not fill. Religion is not the only alternative so it's not really the point of the discussion, nor is anyone saying that religion is more useful than science. In fact, no one is arguing about the usefulness of religion at all, save you. Why do you suppose that is? Because your position on science is wrong so you try to distract us with your bigotted position on religion to throw us off the trail? We're not biting.

Science cannot answer all questions nor can it even tell us what percentage of the questions it has addresses. It can tell us much about our objective reality, the reality that relies on what we observe, but it can tell us nothing absolute. It may be dead on in terms of absolute reality or they may not even be passingly related. And science cannot tell us which of these two conditions exists or even posit which exists. Of course, science is remarkably useful and gives us much. I think the people who battle against scientific conclusions are illogical. However, in the end, science, like all of us humans, is limited and always will be. To ascribe the charactistics to science that you do is to treat science as a religion. That does no one any good and is counterproductive to the purpose of science.

good day eh! hey! i have this sporangium happening on my cheese in the fridge, why? and who put it there? and where did the little buggers get their start? and who started the other buggers to start the process to start that processes so on and so on.......? - i guess as Forest Gump says " LIFE IS LIKE A BOX OF CHOCOLATES YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET" - faith in science or religion - Who can answer that - if you can then you're a,a---- God !!!!!!!!! - i will go now, need to tend to my cheese....

just a reprise - Hey! i found a beer behind the cheese - didn't see it from all the sporangium .....:fluffle:

Please don't spam this thread.

Still not addressing the point. We are talking about whether science can answer all questions not whether religion of the gaps is a good idea.

I would like to talk about whether a religion of the gaps is a good idea. My initial response is No. I'll go into this further if we take it in that direction, but do not want to derail this discussion.

On this topic- I agree with whomever said that the observable will change (ie, what can be observed and how), so the parameters of science will expand. Also- yes, it is impossible to know what you do not know. But I would add to that that it is imparative to keep looking.

And as long as humans continue to have a consciousness, how could it ever do that?

It's the same issue again, of claiming "there is no more to discover" or that you've finally learned all there is to know. Science cannot make that claim. If it does, it is no longer science.

There are humans whose consciousness can contain the idea of no objective reality.

I don't think science will claim "there is no more to discover", and the premise that there is no objective reality would still leave much to discover.

I don't know whose points you're responding to, but they aren't mine.

Every discovered principal in science opens many more questions. Again, I'm only making the point that science offers limited, reasonably sound answers. Religion offers unlimited made-up ones.

I'm saying that some answer require philosophy, you are saying they do not. I am using philosophy to evidence my answer. You are using philosophy and unintentionally evidencing my answer.

No, if your answer was correct, your answer would reflect no philosophy at all, but instead a purely scientific position. Your position is not scientific and thus evidences that some questions cannot be answered scientifically.


Now I see your problem. You wrongly draw the conclusion that because I don't buy religion, I therefore have no philosophy. That's ridiculous.

Religion does not equal philosophy, and I can have a philosophy without having religion.

Using science for its puposes does not exclude having a philosophy.

When did I ever claim to have no philosophy? There are many sound, secular philosophies.

You talk so much about bigotry and hypocrisy, yet your own presuppositions bury you.


Not, may not, will not. The fundamentals of science make this a truism. Meanwhile, with what senses did you observe evidence of a lack of God. I'm quite curious about your 'observation'.

How some have looked at religious pursuits or even most does not suggest that is all that it is. Some may get glimpses into the absolute nature of reality and last I checked you have no way of evidencing or observing that they haven't.

Reason would tell you that it is not possible to KNOW something doesn't exist, only that it does. I gather no concrete evidence that a bug that eats metal doesn't exist. However, if I see a bunch of bugs eating metal, that's pretty concrete evidence that they do. Given that, it's pretty much impossible that you've single-handedly disproven all religious views, particularly since many of them only posit a higher being rather than being assured of one.

Everything is based on completely unscientific assumption. It's amusing that you've found a question that can't be answered by science and, meanwhile, you're arguing that it can't be proven that science cannot answer all questions. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the fundamentals of science should be aware that science limits itself to make itself more useful. The limit is necessary and makes it so it cannot EVER answer all questions.

You only hear what you want to hear. Read my first post in this topic, and my others. I have repeatedly said that science doesn't answer all questions.

That fact that I choose to add other observations about my views on religion just means that its an open opinion board.

I don't know who your responding to, but it isn't me.

Either way, you're just vigorously attacking statements I never made. I never claimed to be without philosophy, just without religion. I never said science answers all questions, just that the answers it does provide are reasonable for the limited questions it addresses. I also feel those limitations are pushed back constantly.

Please try dealing with what I'm saying, not what you want me to be saying so that you can feel right.

No, in fact, it is a scientific position that even if all things can be observed, we would have no way of knowing it.

The fact is that it is impossible to know what you do not know. It's kind of the way things work. It's unfortunate that no matter how many times this explained to you that you cannot understand.

What you can't understand is that I'm not claiming that science can observe everything, or I'm not claiming that claim can be made. I'm saying that more methods of observation are developed all the time, so the unobservable portion is always shrinking, though it will never be zero (at least under conditions that can be envisioned).

Again, please try dealing with what I'm actually saying, not your false extrapolations.



Amusing, but this has nothing to do with point other than exposing your own bigotry. Not all religion is religion of the gaps.

Still not addressing the point. We are talking about whether science can answer all questions not whether religion of the gaps is a good idea.

I've chosen to expand the point to an adjacent area, and others on the thread seem willing to discuss it.

I'll state my position again:

Science doesn't answer all questions and doesn't pretend to. Resorting to the supernatural is an act of need, not reason. Maybe there's a supernatural range of things, but they can't presentably be addressed soundly, so its a bad idea to make up a range of supernatural things just to have answers to tough questions.

And again, because I reject religion, that doesn't mean I dont' have a philosophy. I mean, come on.

I would like to talk about whether a religion of the gaps is a good idea. My initial response is No. I'll go into this further if we take it in that direction, but do not want to derail this discussion.

On this topic- I agree with whomever said that the observable will change (ie, what can be observed and how), so the parameters of science will expand. Also- yes, it is impossible to know what you do not know. But I would add to that that it is imparative to keep looking.

I agree with everything you said about the religion of the gaps and the observable changing, etc. The observable will change and what is unobservable will sometimes become observable. However, we will never have any way of knowing what is unobservable by it's very nature which is why science will never know everything, particularly how much of the universe or reality it is unable to observe.

Here's a question science can NEVER answer... Do we know everything?
Wouldn't science's answer to that be, "No"?
Ha. Yeah. That was dumb of me, huh? But it shows that science does not agree with what some people are arguing science can do. The scientific answer to that question is and always will be NO.

Seeing into the future now?

I thought soothsaying was forbidden in most religions.

Seriously, you're missing the point. The purview of science is unbounded, moreso than the collective coping mechanism of religion.

When you're done being deceptive, we'll continue. You accused me of being a soothsayer when I said the scientific answer is and always will be no to the question "Do we know everything?". Now, you admit that science cannot know everything. Are you a soothsayer? You give lip service to the concept but you keep claiming that in the future that science could possibly know everything. The fact is that is false.

You suggested in your statements above that science not only may possibly know everything one day but it will be able to affirmatively answer the question "Do we know everything?" That is not just not a scientific position. The position is unscientific. The conclusion is unscientific and if the one answered the question affirmatively the answer would be unscientific. You also implied that science is boundless but it is not only bounded, it is aware of its bounds and welcomes them. You let your bigotry blind you to what your statements imply.

I think we will be able to know the answer to any testable question because of science some time in the future.

When you're done being deceptive, we'll continue. You accused me of being a soothsayer when I said the scientific answer is and always will be no to the question "Do we know everything?". Now, you admit that science cannot know everything. Are you a soothsayer? You give lip service to the concept but you keep claiming that in the future that science could possibly know everything. The fact is that is false.

You suggested in your statements above that science not only may possibly know everything one day but it will be able to affirmatively answer the question "Do we know everything?" That is not just not a scientific position. The position is unscientific. The conclusion is unscientific and if the one answered the question affirmatively the answer would be unscientific. You also implied that science is boundless but it is not only bounded, it is aware of its bounds and welcomes them. You let your bigotry blind you to what your statements imply.

Again, you're extrapolating what I said into something I didn't say. When I say the purview of science is unbounded, I'm saying that the body questions it can answer is growing daily, but I've also said that the body of questions it can't answer will never go to zero (at least under any circumstances I can imagine).

As to what will happen in the future, I am simply more cautious than you in terms of what science will eventually be able to do. Do I think science will ever be "finished"? No, I don't. But I can't prove that, so I avoid the categorical statement of such.

Our disagreement is this: What you hear as "suggested" in my statements, I don't believe is in my statements. Keep throwing the "bigotry" rock as long as you need to, but its not any bigger of a deal than you reading more into what I say than what I put there.

So to be clear: When I say "science does nicely", I mean science does nicely answering the questions in its perview, which grows daily. I don't think science's perview will ever be total, but I can't prove it won't be. I'm simply more optimisitic about what it will eventually be able to answer.

I call the perview of science unbounded in that I don't think we'll ever get to the a question that we can call "the last scientific question". In no way does that conflict with science.

Try "unbounded" in the sense what I mean it to mean, not what you need it to mean so you can keep crying "bigot".

If you want to say science is bounded in the sense that it can't ever claim its discovered everything, I'll buy that. But that boundary applies to any other method of discovery.

I think you just need to cope with the fact that metaphysical discussion frequently falls victim to the imprecision of language. If some of that's been my fault for not clarifying my terms, I'll make a better effort in the future.

I think we will be able to know the answer to any testable question because of science some time in the future.

Seems reasonable, for testable questions. I'm just not a fan of people who make up answers for untestable questions. I prefer to leave untestable questions as admittedly unanswered, and live with that.

*snip*

By the way, I have to run in about ten minutes, so if you make a response and I'm offline, I didn't leave to ignore you, I just had to be somewhere.

Again, you're extrapolating what I said into something I didn't say. When I say the purview of science is unbounded, I'm saying that the body questions it can answer is growing daily, but I've also said that the body of questions it can't answer will never go to zero (at least under any circumstances I can imagine).

Then it is bounded. In fact, as a discipline, its boundaries are a part of the definition of science. Can science disprove the existence of god(s)? Nope. It can disprove particular incarnations or definition of god(s), even perhaps their ability to interact with the natural world, but not the possibility of existence of them. You know why? It's outside of the purview of science. The purview of science is bounded unless you redefine the discipline.

As to what will happen in the future, I am simply more cautious than you in terms of what science will eventually be able to do. Do I think science will ever be "finished"? No, I don't. But I can't prove that, so I avoid the categorical statement of such.

Um, yes, you could. You can know the purpose and purview of science which is bounded and accept that even if it happened to know everything else in an absolute sense, it could never answer the question "do we know everything?" affirmatively without leaving the realm of science.

Our disagreement is this: What you hear as "suggested" in my statements, I don't believe is in my statements. Keep throwing the "bigotry" rock as long as you need to, but its not any bigger of a deal than you reading more into what I say than what I put there.

Um, let's see what I CAN find in your statements, shall we?

all-powerful, pseudo-perfect daddy figure

collective coping mechanism of religion

who feel no need to cling to a fabricated answer, science does nicely.

But for needier people, there's another menu.

its neither necessary nor wise to cling to comforting fictions like religion

but that doesn't excuse committing yourself to baseless "answers".

Religion offers unlimited made-up ones.

You make sweeping attacks at all religions though many are not guilty of the things you claim and you meanwhile take up philosophical positions that have no more grounding that the position of religion. More importantly, you drag religion into a discussion that is about science rather than staying on topic. The only logical reason is that you A) think religion is the only alternative (which I know is a position you don't hold) or B) just couldn't wait for a chance to bash religion. We know which one it is.

And if you're going to be unwilling to state things categorically that you cannot prove then how about you look at the above statements, realize you can't support ANY of them and withdraw them. Or continue to be deceptive and inconsistent. You're welcome to do either but since you were talking about the honesty of science and the important of being able to support your positions and not making up answers, it seems like you should probably withdraw them.

Your posts reak of the same kinds of people that can't discuss whether or not Clinton is guilty of something without pointing out that Bush is more guilty or vice versa or like my little sister thinking that accusing me of something somehow will make parents forget what she did. Science has limitations and for the purposes of this thread it does not matter if those limitations are the same, different, more or less than that of religion. It is not germaine to the discussion.

So to be clear: When I say "science does nicely", I mean science does nicely answering the questions in its perview, which grows daily. I don't think science's perview will ever be total, but I can't prove it won't be. I'm simply more optimisitic about what it will eventually be able to answer.

Take "unbounded" for what I mean it to mean, not what you need it to mean so you can keep crying "bigot".

I don't call you a bigot for saying unbounded. In fact, I didn't call you a bigot at all. I only said some of your statements and your views on this matter are bigotted and above I quoted how I reached that conclusion.

You know when you put a pair of socks in the dryer, and only one comes out?

Where does the other one go?

See, science doesn't have all the answers.

Normally it goes to the agitator. If you test each one on an indivdual basis, you could find all of them.

Then it is bounded. In fact, as a discipline, its boundaries are a part of the definition of science. Can science disprove the existence of god(s)? Nope. It can disprove particular incarnations or definition of god(s), even perhaps their ability to interact with the natural world, but not the possibility of existence of them. You know why? It's outside of the purview of science. The purview of science is bounded unless you redefine the discipline.



Um, yes, you could. You can know the purpose and purview of science which is bounded and accept that even if it happened to know everything else in an absolute sense, it could never answer the question "do we know everything?" affirmatively without leaving the realm of science.



Um, let's see what I CAN find in your statements, shall we?

You make sweeping attacks at all religions though many are not guilty of the things you claim and you meanwhile take up philosophical positions that have no more grounding that the position of religion. More importantly, you drag religion into a discussion that is about science rather than staying on topic. The only logical reason is that you A) think religion is the only alternative (which I know is a position you don't hold) or B) just couldn't wait for a chance to bash religion. We know which one it is.

And if you're going to be unwilling to state things categorically that you cannot prove then how about you look at the above statements, realize you can't support ANY of them and withdraw them. Or continue to be deceptive and inconsistent. You're welcome to do either but since you were talking about the honesty of science and the important of being able to support your positions and not making up answers, it seems like you should probably withdraw them.

Your posts reak of the same kinds of people that can't discuss whether or not Clinton is guilty of something without pointing out that Bush is more guilty or vice versa or like my little sister thinking that accusing me of something somehow will make parents forget what she did. Science has limitations and for the purposes of this thread it does not matter if those limitations are the same, different, more or less than that of religion. It is not germaine to the discussion.

I don't call you a bigot for saying unbounded. In fact, I didn't call you a bigot at all. I only said some of your statements and your views on this matter are bigotted and above I quoted how I reached that conclusion.

So, I'm off topic for bringing up religion, now you're making this about Clinton and Bush.

You believe I'm semantically wrong for using bounded in my sense, and not yours, but now you say you never called me a bigot, but just said that I have bigotted views.

Isn't a bigot somebody who has bigotted views?

You're just horked that I have a negative opinion about religion, and brought it up on a thread that you don't feel should include a discussion of religion. Well, if the mods feel I'm threadjacking, fair enough.

If they don't, I'll make the observations I want.

I stand by my original post to this thread:

The merit of science is not that it can answer all questions, but in the veracity of the answers it provides to questions it does address.

If you feel that's irrelevant or not at issue, ignore it.

the question "is there life in the universe outside our solar system?" is not valid under the scientific method, even though it's a good one.

It's a testable statement. We go out of our solar system, If we find life, there is, if we don't, we still don't know. But it is possible to test.

So, I'm off topic for bringing up religion, now you're making this about Clinton and Bush.

Um, you've heard about analogies, yes? You'll notice that I, intentionally, made the reference both ways to keep it from being about that, but more pointing out that it seems if someone hates a group enough, Republicans, Democrats, Religious folks, minoriites, gays, etc., they find a way to drag into every thread that is even passingly related. This thread has nothing to do with religion and no point you make about religion will ever support or defend the arguments that can be made in reference to this thread.

You believe I'm semantically wrong for using bounded in my sense, and not yours, but now you say you never called me a bigot, but just said that I have bigotted views.

You said the purview is unbounded. The purview is a part of the definition so it is clearly bounded. It's a semantic issue. It's clear.

Purview - the range or limit of authority, competence, responsibility, concern, or intention

The range of authority, competence, responsibility, concern and intention of science is absolutely bounded by its definition. That's the point. You fail to see it, but while what falls within those boundaries might change the boundaries are set as a part of the definition of science. To say otherwise, is spurious.

Isn't a bigot somebody who has bigotted views?

Nope. I think you can say something stupid and not be stupid. You can say something liberal and not be a liberal. You can same something bigotted and not actually be a bigot.

You're just horked that I have a negative opinion about religion, and brought it up on a thread that you don't feel should include a discussion of religion. Well, if the mods feel I'm threadjacking, fair enough.

I didn't say you were threadjacking. I said it was bigotry. You went off-topic simply so you could attack religion in a thread that is not about religion. I don't care if you threadjack. I do care, however, if you hurl abuses at people who are religious. The mods have nothing to say about it. They don't stop you from make bigotted comments, which is what I accused you of and proved you did.

If they don't, I'll make the observations I want.

You're welcome to make those observations. I'm welcome to point out that they are bigotted.

I stand by my original post to this thread:

The merit of science is not that it can answer all questions, but in the veracity of the answers it provides to questions it does address.

If you feel that's irrelevant or not at issue, ignore it.

No, that was completely relevant. The problem comes when you try to support a valid statement with the your views on religion. It's not just taking the opportunity to attack religion, but it's also illogical. The limitations of science are not more or less simply because there are limits to religion as well.

It's a testable statement. We go out of our solar system, If we find life, there is, if we don't, we still don't know. But it is possible to test.
you don't actually know what the scientific method is, then. it has to be falsifiable... take the law of gravity, for example. if there are a million tests that fit the law's mold but just one that doesn't mesh with it, it's instantly disproven.

with the "other life out there?" question, not finding it in Alpha Centari doesn't mean the rest of the universe is void of life. if we searched every nook and cranny in our local supercluster and didn't find life... it still might be elsewhere.

the question i posed is verifiable, but not falsifiable, and therefore not valid under the scientific method (again, it is still an important and good question... just not scientific ;) ).

the question "is there life in the universe outside our solar system?" is not valid under the scientific method, even though it's a good one.

This is not just incorrect as an opinion, but incorrect in fact.

This is not just incorrect as an opinion, but incorrect in fact.
how is it incorrect as a fact? give evidence to support your stance.

i know what the scientific method is and is not. do you?

how is it incorrect as a fact? give evidence to support your stance.

i know what the scientific method is and is not. do you?

Simple, you can rephrase it to have the same meaning and be falsifiable. By finding life, you would falsify the statement, "There is no life elsewhere in the universe.". Same basic question, rephrased. QED.

how is it incorrect as a fact? give evidence to support your stance.

i know what the scientific method is and is not. do you?

Pardon me. Are you suggesting that life outside the universe is not a testable assumption?

"Life does not exist outside the solar system."

Falsifiable? Yes.

Does it pass occam's razor? Yes.

Is there any reason to hold the hypothesis to be true at this point? Not exactly. It's like every nonexistence hypothesis in that it only takes one entity to prove it wrong. But that doesn't make it impossible to test. As we explore more and more of the universe and don't find life it becomes more and more likely. If we do find life, then we've certainly supported our hypothesis.

Simple, you can rephrase it to have the same meaning and be falsifiable. By finding life, you would falsify the statement, "There is no life elsewhere in the universe.". Same basic question, rephrased. QED.

Exactly. Thus the question is scientific, but the hypothesis would be worded differently.

Simple, you can rephrase it to have the same meaning and be falsifiable. By finding life, you would falsify the statement, "There is no life elsewhere in the universe.". Same basic question, rephrased. QED.
but what if you didn't find life? it still might be out there, thus making the question not valid under the scientific method. ALL outcomes have to fit the method, not just the one you want :-p

It would, in fact, be possible to completely verify the lack of complex life (as opposed to things like microbes, which would be difficult to track, but technically could be accounted for), by counting up all the mass of the universe, and checking that there is non-life mass enough to make up for everything that's needed.

How we figure out how much mass-energy there is in the universe is a whole other question :p

Exactly. Thus the question is scientific, but the hypothesis would be worded differently.
i'm sorry, but no it's not. read my post right after yours and you'll see why.

This (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/309/5731/75.pdf) is a good list of those it hasn't (PDF warning). No idea how many will eventually be solved, though I'm sure they all will if we make it as a species.

It would, in fact, be possible to completely verify the lack of complex life (as opposed to things like microbes, which would be difficult to track, but technically could be accounted for), by counting up all the mass of the universe, and checking that there is non-life mass enough to make up for everything that's needed.

How we figure out how much mass-energy there is in the universe is a whole other question :p
actually, no we couldn't, since there are organic compounds in existance that aren't part of actual life, and there's enough of it to mass many organisms (especially if we're taking the entire universe's amount into acount)

but what if you didn't find life? it still might be out there, thus making the question not valid under the scientific method. ALL outcomes have to fit the method, not just the one you want :-p

The object of testing is to falsify a statement. So your point is spurious. Take the Newton's laws. How much testing supported the statement. Tons. However, eventually we falsified those laws and found they are just approximations (close enough for the macro level). All theories are simply supported by testing but not proven. You are right that the theory could be supported by testing but it would not be falsified until we found life. Now, it may never be falsified and then we would continue to hold the theory, but the point is that it is capable of falsification and is, thus, scientiific.

You don't seem to understand that hypothesis is ever proven. The possibilty of falsification is not only always there, but has to be by definition. You are only pointing out how the theory will still be falsifiable even after it has been supported as is true of every theory, EVER.

actually, no we couldn't, since there are organic compounds in existance that aren't part of actual life, and there's enough of it to mass many organisms (especially if we're taking the entire universe's amount into acount)

You are looking to prove the hypothesis which is invalid. A hypothesis has to remain falsifiable until it is falsified. If it is tested repeatedly this suggests the hypothesis is valid, but it is never proven in an absolute sense of the word. This is clearly what you're looking for and it's flawed.

maybe it was just the wording, but you lost me on that last paragraph.

The possibilty of falsification is not only always there, but has to be by definition.are you talking about my question posed, the alternate form of my question, all questions in general, what?

You are only pointing out how the theory will still be falsifiable even after it has been supported as is true of every theory, EVER.again, i'm not saying you're wrong or anything, i just need clarification to better understand the point you're making

maybe it was just the wording, but you lost me on that last paragraph.

are you talking about my question posed, the alternate form of my question, all questions in general, what?

again, i'm not saying you're wrong or anything, i just need clarification to better understand the point you're making

I'm saying that a theory has to always be falsifiable and remain so or it must be falsified.

It is true that no matter how much you test the theory "there is no life beyond our solar system" that it will not be proven true. It will always be possible we will find life somewhere we haven't yet looked. Thus it remains falsifiable no matter how much we test the theory. Good. Now if we find life then it is falsified. This is the basis of every scientific theory and of the method.

See, being falsifiable makes it a scientific theory. You made an argument that actually shows it to be a valid theory and a valid scientific question.

A lot of these questions actually can be answered. 1+1=2 is covered in any basic philosophy course on Logic and many of the other questions just boil down to the philosphy of semantics.

There are some questions which I doubt will ever be answered, questions such as "Do we have a soul?" and "Is love just chemical reactions in the brain, or is it more?".....

You are looking to prove the hypothesis which is invalid. A hypothesis has to remain falsifiable until it is falsified. If it is tested repeatedly this suggests the hypothesis is valid, but it is never proven in an absolute sense of the word. This is clearly what you're looking for and it's flawed.
no, the point i'm making is that, given the "is there life outside our solar system?" question, it is NOT falsified even if we do an experiment in one place and find no life.

in other words, if one experiment turns up "no life", it DOESN'T prove the original hypothesis false (since it still might be elsewhere); that is why it's not scientific.

A lot of these questions actually can be answered. 1+1=2 is covered in any basic philosophy course on Logic and many of the other questions just boil down to the philosphy of semantics.

There are some questions which I doubt will ever be answered, questions such as "Do we have a soul?" and "Is love just chemical reactions in the brain, or is it more?".....

Well it depends on how you define soul. If you mean conciousness then the answers would be yes and yes. Love is just chemical reactions in the brain, just like any other emotion.

I'm saying that a theory has to always be falsifiable and remain so or it must be falsified.

It is true that no matter how much you test the theory "there is no life beyond our solar system" that it will not be proven true. It will always be possible we will find life somewhere we haven't yet looked. Thus it remains falsifiable no matter how much we test the theory. Good. Now if we find life then it is falsified. This is the basis of every scientific theory and of the method.

See, being falsifiable makes it a scientific theory. You made an argument that actually shows it to be a valid theory and a valid scientific question.
but: i wasn't saying "there is no life...", i was saying "there is life..." (a semantically valid restructuring of the actual line "is there life...")

you're claiming my points are innacurate to an argument i didn't make. well of course they are, i wasn't talking about that in the first place!

no, the point i'm making is that, given the "is there life outside our solar system?" question, it is NOT falsified even if we do an experiment in one place and find no life.

in other words, if one experiment turns up "no life", it DOESN'T prove the original hypothesis false (since it still might be elsewhere); that is why it's not scientific.

But the same question can be answered by falsifying the statement "There is no other life in the Universe.", which is scientific.

But the same question can be answered by falsifying the statement "There is no other life in the Universe.", which is scientific.
i've put some hard thought into it, and yes, i conceed that the "there is no life" version is falsifiable and therefore scientific.

which, i guess, brings me to the question: how can one form of a question be scientific and a second form not? is it simply because it was worded poorly the second time??

nevermind, i figured my own question out :p

let "there is life..." = A
"is there no life..." is therefore = !A (not a)

if life is found, A is true. if life is not found, A is neither shown to be true nor false.
if life is found, !A is false. if life is not found, !A is neither shown to be true nor false

so, to wrap it up, i prettymuch rescend all my previous semi-vehemient posts about the semantics of A and !A :rolleyes:

see, people that will admit when they're wrong do exist :)

p.s. darn you logic, you win again! ;)

no, the point i'm making is that, given the "is there life outside our solar system?" question, it is NOT falsified even if we do an experiment in one place and find no life.

in other words, if one experiment turns up "no life", it DOESN'T prove the original hypothesis false (since it still might be elsewhere); that is why it's not scientific.

First, hypothesis is not a question, ever. However, the question you asked is scientific since if it is worded properly it can be tested which is what we showed you. "Life does not exist outside of our solar system" is a valid scientific hypothesis. When we presented you with the alternative phrasing, you continued to argue and not only did you argue, you inferred that each of us did not understand the method. Now are you going to be honest and admit that your point that the question cannot be addressed by science is invalid or are you going to continue to try and salvage this by twisting what you meant?

First, hypothesis is not a question, ever. However, the question you asked is scientific since if it is worded properly it can be tested which is what we showed you. "Life does not exist outside of our solar system" is a valid scientific hypothesis. When we presented you with the alternative phrasing, you continued to argue and not only did you argue, you inferred that each of us did not understand the method. Now are you going to be honest and admit that your point that the question cannot be addressed by science is invalid or are you going to continue to try and salvage this by twisting what you meant?
hehe, look right about yer post :p

nevermind, i figured my own question out :p

let "there is life..." = A
"is there no life..." is therefore = !A (not a)

if life is found, A is true. if life is not found, A is neither shown to be true nor false.
if life is found, !A is false. if life is not found, !A is neither shown to be true nor false

so, to wrap it up, i prettymuch rescend all my previous semi-vehemient posts about the semantics of A and !A :rolleyes:

see, people that will admit when they're wrong do exist :)

p.s. darn you logic, you win again! ;)

Glad to here it. The point is that a question is scientific if it can be worded in a way that fits the method. The question you originally posed is and any question that can be similarly reworded is also. Nearly all scientific hypotheses can be made unscientific hypotheses simply by reversing them. That's why the wording is so important.

Glad to here it. The point is that a question is scientific if it can be worded in a way that fits the method. The question you originally posed is and any question that can be similarly reworded is also. Nearly all scientific hypotheses can be made unscientific hypotheses simply by reversing them. That's why the wording is so important.

hehe... but if i wanted to be really evil, i could say that my original question is still technically a good one that is not provable by the scientific method ;D

but yeah... that'd be rather dickish of me :p

Um, you've heard about analogies, yes? You'll notice that I, intentionally, made the reference both ways to keep it from being about that, but more pointing out that it seems if someone hates a group enough, Republicans, Democrats, Religious folks, minoriites, gays, etc., they find a way to drag into every thread that is even passingly related. This thread has nothing to do with religion and no point you make about religion will ever support or defend the arguments that can be made in reference to this thread.

You said the purview is unbounded. The purview is a part of the definition so it is clearly bounded. It's a semantic issue. It's clear.

Purview - the range or limit of authority, competence, responsibility, concern, or intention

The range of authority, competence, responsibility, concern and intention of science is absolutely bounded by its definition. That's the point. You fail to see it, but while what falls within those boundaries might change the boundaries are set as a part of the definition of science. To say otherwise, is spurious.



Nope. I think you can say something stupid and not be stupid. You can say something liberal and not be a liberal. You can same something bigotted and not actually be a bigot.



I didn't say you were threadjacking. I said it was bigotry. You went off-topic simply so you could attack religion in a thread that is not about religion. I don't care if you threadjack. I do care, however, if you hurl abuses at people who are religious. The mods have nothing to say about it. They don't stop you from make bigotted comments, which is what I accused you of and proved you did.



You're welcome to make those observations. I'm welcome to point out that they are bigotted.



No, that was completely relevant. The problem comes when you try to support a valid statement with the your views on religion. It's not just taking the opportunity to attack religion, but it's also illogical. The limitations of science are not more or less simply because there are limits to religion as well.

Alright, how about this:

I made statements about religion that are not true of all religion (I'll take your word for that, sincerely), and that was wrong on my part. It was not right action or right speech for me to say it in such a blanketed way; it was my fault to tar all religions with the same brush, and I'm sorry.

I still feel its possible to be bound in one way, and not another, but I will agree that science is bounded, purposely and beneficially so, by its use of observation and testing.

Out of respect for you, I'll limit my observations of religion on this thread.

Whats left for me to say is this:

I have friends who talk about a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. I have long told them that this is not a meaningful goal, we should be looking for the "Continuously Updated and Revised Theory of Those Principals We're Aware of At This Time".

But I still hold hope that science eventually could be "redefined" as a discipline to address progressively more metaphysical issues, as long as its use of support and testing could somehow survive that redefinition.

Alright, how about this:

I made statements about religion that are not true of all religion (I'll take your word for that, sincerely), and that was wrong on my part. It was not right action or right speech for me to say it in such a blanketed way; it was my fault to tar all religions with the same brush, and I'm sorry.

I still feel its possible to be bound in one way, and not another, but I will agree that science is bounded, purposely and beneficially so, by its use of observation and testing.

Out of respect for you, I'll limit my observations of religion on this thread.

Whats left for me to say is this:

I have friends who talk about a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. I have long told them that this is not a meaningful goal, we should be looking for the "Continuously Updated and Revised Theory of Those Principals We're Aware of At This Time".

But I still hold hope that science eventually could be "redefined" as a discipline to address progressively more metaphysical issues, as long as its use of support and testing could somehow survive that redefinition.

Wow, that's twice today that I was diametrically opposed to someone and we reached common ground. Awesome. I agree with all of this. If you read back, I am one of those that defends both religion and science in this thread. I'm a fan of Einstein on that one.

Wow, that's twice today that I was diametrically opposed to someone and we reached common ground. Awesome. I agree with all of this. If you read back, I am one of those that defends both religion and science in this thread. I'm a fan of Einstein on that one.

You're gracious in triumph.

I have to start reigning myself in when I jump on religion, as I would imagine its as broad and deep a field of study as any. I still don't like those religions that exhibit the behaviour I described, though. Wish I could better remember that not all religions engage in some, any, or all of those things I object to.

You're gracious in triumph.

I have to start reigning myself in when I jump on religion, as I would imagine its as broad and deep a field of study as any. I still don't like those religions that exhibit the behaviour I described, though. Wish I could better remember that not all religions engage in some, any, or all of those things I object to.

A meeting of the minds is everyone's triumph.

A meeting of the minds is everyone's triumph.

Unless it's Hitler, Stalin, Ceaser and Alexander the Great Mind-Melding.

Unless it's Hitler, Stalin, Ceaser and Alexander the Great Mind-Melding.

Dammit. Foiled again by someone with a weird imagination. You have no idea how often that happens to me. The last time I would have been really upset if I hadn't had that extra testicle.

Unless it's Hitler, Stalin, Ceaser and Alexander the Great Mind-Melding.

This would be a very bad day indeed.