Incomprehensible

[untermensche]

Saying an egg falls due to gravity isn't an explanation, it's a label.

No it isnt just a label, but this doesnt seem like a rational discussion at all, you seem to deliberately dismiss all knowledge as useless so I leave you to it. Bye.

I asked for one example so your idea could be examined.

So you throw out a strawman about me dismissing all knowledge as useless and refuse to give one.

Much of science long ago gave up trying to explain things and instead decided to develop models that were useful. Models that describe behavior.

I absolutely agree the models are useful.

But they do not explain why the behavior occurs. They only explain how they occur, which is useful because predictions can be made.

If space bends that is important, but saying space bends does not explain what space is and what it means for it to be bent and specifically how it is bent.

 

[Juma]

But they do not explain why the behavior occurs.

Yes they do. They explain why particles forms atoms. Why atoms forms molecules etc.

If space bends that is important, but saying space bends does not explain what space is and what it means for it to be bent and specifically how it is bent.

"What it means for it to be bent" ?? Do you believe that space is sentient?

 

[repoman]

I think that finding where to cleave the "How" from the "Why" is important. I think it is partly english language.

I think that "why" should be more often used for where humans (and other animals at times) have made a choice among different options. Why a choice has been made in one direction or other.

I think that science is always going to devolve to how, unless you project "agency" onto the universe.

 

[untermensche]

Yes they do. They explain why particles forms atoms. Why atoms forms molecules etc.

All it takes to understand how molecules form are the concepts that similar charges repel and opposite charges attract, atoms and molecules can become polarized, they can exhibit charge and electrons can move around.

None of this is explained, but how it occurs is understood.

If space bends that is important, but saying space bends does not explain what space is and what it means for it to be bent and specifically how it is bent.

"What it means for it to be bent" ?? Do you believe that space is sentient?

To bend is to change shape. How space has shape and how that shape is changed.

 

[Juma]

All it takes to understand how molecules form are the concepts that similar charges repel and opposite charges attract, atoms and molecules can become polarized, they can exhibit charge and electrons can move around.

None of this is explained, but how it occurs is understood.
.

"How it occurs" = "is explained"

 

[Malintent]

Our understanding of the universe is at about the 1% point.

you have no basis for that statistic. No one does. I highly doubt the percentage of all possible knowledge in the universe is anywhere near that huge number (1%). We would be nearly omniscient in at least a few million galaxies if that figure was within light years of realm of possibility.

All we have are models of behavior. There are huge parts of the universe we don't understand at all, the "dark" regions.

Yes, we have very good models of behavior of many complex seeming things.. so good that we are able to make good use of those models.. they are very useful.

We have no explanation for why behaviors occur or exist. This goes from the behavior of a quark to the behavior of a bee.

by "why" do you mean "how"? Science does not play around with philosophical or psychological questions of 'what moved you to decide to behave this way instead of that way'. Science is in the business of describing how something works, not 'is it good' or anything other than describing processes.

Maybe humans will one day get to 2%. Maybe.

I'm confused... are you saying we know shit or not? you seem to think we have great banks of knowledge that would put the ancient god characters to shame

 

[untermensche]

All it takes to understand how molecules form are the concepts that similar charges repel and opposite charges attract, atoms and molecules can become polarized, they can exhibit charge and electrons can move around.

None of this is explained, but how it occurs is understood.
.

"How it occurs" = "is explained"

How it occurs = the manner in which it occurs. The ball moves towards the earth.

What are all the reasons it behaves in this manner and not another manner = is explained.

 

[untermensche]

you have no basis for that statistic. No one does. I highly doubt the percentage of all possible knowledge in the universe is anywhere near that huge number (1%). We would be nearly omniscient in at least a few million galaxies if that figure was within light years of realm of possibility.

I have no basis, nor does anyone else, exactly. Those who say we understand a lot have no basis. All they can say is we understand more than we used to.

All we have are models of behavior. There are huge parts of the universe we don't understand at all, the "dark" regions.

Yes, we have very good models of behavior of many complex seeming things.. so good that we are able to make good use of those models.. they are very useful.

Models are description of behavior, not explanation of behavior.

We have no explanation for why behaviors occur or exist. This goes from the behavior of a quark to the behavior of a bee.

by "why" do you mean "how"? Science does not play around with philosophical or psychological questions of 'what moved you to decide to behave this way instead of that way'. Science is in the business of describing how something works, not 'is it good' or anything other than describing processes.

Of course the science of psychology is looking for causes of behavior.

So is neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, and anthropology, and sociology, and evolutionary biology, and others.

They would love to know causes, but all they have to look at are behaviors.

Maybe humans will one day get to 2%. Maybe.

I'm confused... are you saying we know shit or not? you seem to think we have great banks of knowledge that would put the ancient god characters to shame

At first you seem to understand these numbers are made up, now you are confused.

The point is we have no idea how much there is to know. And how much could possibly be known.

We do know humans are biological entities, and as such have limits. They will only be able to run so fast and know so much.

The only question is: Are humans near their limits or not?

 

[Malintent]

You seem to be confused about what science is used for.

Models are description of behavior, not explanation of behavior.

so you have replaced "..but it doesn't tell me WHY" with "..but it doesn't explain to me WHY"

You're not getting anywhere.

Science increases our knowledge. Other ways to just decide you know things does not increase knowledge.
That is really all that need be said.

Philosophy and theism does not tell me WHY my alarm clock keeps flashing 12:00... therefore, what?
All philosophy and theism is able to do is say, "it is for a reason than you can not currently perceive"... therefore, what?

 

[skepticalbip]

You seem to be confused about what science is used for.

Models are description of behavior, not explanation of behavior.

so you have replaced "..but it doesn't tell me WHY" with "..but it doesn't explain to me WHY"

You're not getting anywhere.

Science increases our knowledge. Other ways to just decide you know things does not increase knowledge.
That is really all that need be said.

Philosophy and theism does not tell me WHY my alarm clock keeps flashing 12:00... therefore, what?
All philosophy and theism is able to do is say, "it is for a reason than you can not currently perceive"... therefore, what?

Yes, humanity spent several thousand years trying to answer "why" questions and only gave us nonsense in reply. Philosophers are still stuck on the question "why" and are making no more headway than our ancient predecessors did. It wasn't until someone figured out that the only path to understanding is to answer the question, "how". Changing the question is responsible for what we do understand of the universe today and how it works.

Humanity has only seriously considered the how questions for a few hundred years so far. The greatest hurtle faced has been overcoming the nonsense answers that those answering the why questions gave us and humanity had accepted as true.

 

[ryan]

Philosophy also deals with the logical aspect of science. For example, we know that there is a problem with current black hole science because of the black hole paradox. As helpful as science is, it sometimes leads us to conflicting theories where only one can be correct. It is up to logic to let us know that they conflict.

 

[Malintent]

Philosophy also deals with the logical aspect of science. For example, we know that there is a problem with current black hole science because of the black hole paradox. As helpful as science is, it sometimes leads us to conflicting theories where only one can be correct. It is up to logic to let us know that they conflict.

Logic is a component of mathematics, which is a tool used by many disciplines to help ensure truth and validity... if only theology would start using that tool some day. Science doesn't have a monopoly on the use of mathematics, for sure.

 

[beero1000]

Philosophy also deals with the logical aspect of science. For example, we know that there is a problem with current black hole science because of the black hole paradox. As helpful as science is, it sometimes leads us to conflicting theories where only one can be correct. It is up to logic to let us know that they conflict.

Logic is a component of mathematics, which is a tool used by many disciplines to help ensure truth and validity... if only theology would start using that tool some day. Science doesn't have a monopoly on the use of mathematics, for sure.

It might be a bit of a nitpick, but I would say that theology does use logic just like physics does. The difference is that science updates its premises based on measurements of reality through experiment, while theology has its premises essentially fixed by the mythology of its pantheon and scriptures. Of course, GIGO means that that difference makes physics much more likely to be an accurate representation of fact, but in that sense both are 'logical'.

 

[ryan]

Philosophy also deals with the logical aspect of science. For example, we know that there is a problem with current black hole science because of the black hole paradox. As helpful as science is, it sometimes leads us to conflicting theories where only one can be correct. It is up to logic to let us know that they conflict.

Logic is a component of mathematics, which is a tool used by many disciplines to help ensure truth and validity... if only theology would start using that tool some day. Science doesn't have a monopoly on the use of mathematics, for sure.

I have to think that math is applied logic. It seems like much of math is a tautology and logic puts it into practice.

 

[Malintent]

Logic is a component of mathematics, which is a tool used by many disciplines to help ensure truth and validity... if only theology would start using that tool some day. Science doesn't have a monopoly on the use of mathematics, for sure.

I have to think that math is applied logic. It seems like much of math is a tautology and logic puts it into practice.

Interesting you say that... I see it the opposite way... the word 'tautology' is actually derived from Logic as a discipline and is defined as such, "a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form".

(P AND Q) = (Q AND P) is a tautology.

1 + 1 = 2 is 'true', but not a tautology.

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophy also deals with the logical aspect of science. For example, we know that there is a problem with current black hole science because of the black hole paradox. As helpful as science is, it sometimes leads us to conflicting theories where only one can be correct. It is up to logic to let us know that they conflict.

While it is true that science uses logic, logic can not tell us which (if either) of two conflicting theories are correct. Theories are based on an interpretation of data and then mathematical conclusion of the interpretation. If there are two theories then either or neither may be correct. Which, if either, is correct or close to correct can only be determined by further testing giving us further data to analyze.

 

[rousseau]

Logic is a component of mathematics, which is a tool used by many disciplines to help ensure truth and validity... if only theology would start using that tool some day. Science doesn't have a monopoly on the use of mathematics, for sure.

It might be a bit of a nitpick, but I would say that theology does use logic just like physics does. The difference is that science updates its premises based on measurements of reality through experiment, while theology has its premises essentially fixed by the mythology of its pantheon and scriptures. Of course, GIGO means that that difference makes physics much more likely to be an accurate representation of fact, but in that sense both are 'logical'.

I'd argue that theology isn't fixed. It can be updated in whatever way gets those ministers paid.

 

[Juma]

"How it occurs" = "is explained"

How it occurs = the manner in which it occurs. The ball moves towards the earth.

What are all the reasons it behaves in this manner and not another manner = is explained.

And what do you think is missing? Science provides detailed answers to both these angles.

 

[ryan]

I have to think that math is applied logic. It seems like much of math is a tautology and logic puts it into practice.

Interesting you say that... I see it the opposite way... the word 'tautology' is actually derived from Logic as a discipline and is defined as such, "a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form".

(P AND Q) = (Q AND P) is a tautology.

1 + 1 = 2 is 'true', but not a tautology.

Okay, I was careless. I found lots of information on this, http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=tautology andhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ .

But think about how just pure deductive logic helps us practice math. For example, any natural number plus any natural number equals another natural number. From that, I know that if I have two natural numbers such as 5 and 6, then adding them together gives me a natural number.

 

[ryan]

Philosophy also deals with the logical aspect of science. For example, we know that there is a problem with current black hole science because of the black hole paradox. As helpful as science is, it sometimes leads us to conflicting theories where only one can be correct. It is up to logic to let us know that they conflict.

While it is true that science uses logic, logic can not tell us which (if either) of two conflicting theories are correct. Theories are based on an interpretation of data and then mathematical conclusion of the interpretation. If there are two theories then either or neither may be correct. Which, if either, is correct or close to correct can only be determined by further testing giving us further data to analyze.

Yeah, okay, I just threw that post in there to defend philosophy. One more example, think about how helpful and interesting thought experiments are. They are good at running a theory to further implications and conclusions or no conclusion like in the case of Schrodinger's cat.