What does science do?

[PGTips]

subjective experience = quantum nonlocalities collapsing into consciousness

Another example of someone attempting to use science words to "spice up" a sentence which makes no sense and means nothing.

Why doesn't science try to explain subjective experiences? They are part of the universe?

Yes they are, but "love" is terribly subjective. Science relies on repeatable phenomena which can be observed by anyone who see the same result and from which a predictive model can arise.

Of course you could say love is an electrochemical setup within our brain, in which case give science another 200 or 500 years till we understand the workings of the brain and maybe we will have a model for love? If you consider it a physical phenomena and it happens to follow the same pattern within everyones brain, then you can model it. If you consider love to be external to the physical world completely, then science will never pin it down.

Scientists use all this reason to understand why the world exists and then tell you there is no reason for any of it. Where's the reason in that?

Why should life have a reason or purpose? Ultimately we're a blob of DNA trying to replicate itself. Once we've procreated we've served our only purpose.

I actually dropped out of college because of it. (Used to be a math major.) yippie.. give me life instead.

Used to be a maths major? I'm very surprised at that given some of the questions/comments you said earlier in the thread about mathematics. Would have saved me explaining the concept of Analysis to you (without actually naming it).

I'm a Maths major, and I have a life. I listen to music, play sport, have a good laugh with my mates. Maths does not preclude seeing the outside world. I know a number of people who have forsaken many or all of those things in favour of mathematics and its plain to see they might be a little "odd". However, the vast majority of mathematicians can be mathematicians and still enjoy music, art, literature, travel and dear I even say it, love! Shock horror, I'm not emotionally hollow despite the fact I spend several hours a day looking at PDEs!

 

[Petersko]

pa.. said:

If you ask me... science should stop trying to solve the "answers" to the universe, because quite simply, science's track record is horrible. Every couple hundred years a new paradigm comes about and science says "Look everyone! We've got it this time" Then a hundred years pass and we look back and go "wow that wasn't even close". It will always be that way.

A process that examines itself as it evolves and re-evaluates its conclusions based on its new understanding won't stagnate.

A horrible track record? Why in heavens do you think that? It has a SPECTACULAR track record. Each model that fell was the best available at the time, and it was discarded when it was no longer useful.

But you feel free to reject science. If you ever you need surgery, have them do it in natural light with a rock sharpened on another rock. No horrible science for you!

pa.. also said.:

So.. math is absolute when it's abstract. When it's used to model reality... If you agree or not (I'm still not sure, because you bring up other crap each post)... but it falls short every time.

Engineering and all the math contained in it makes it possible for you to sit inside a building, typing on a computer, transmitting your opinion on technology that would be impossible if math didn't bear any relation to reality.

Math is fundamental. It isn't invented - it is discovered. You have an apple - UNITY - and you put another one with it. Now you have two apples. Does math describe that accurately? Yes, completely.

Just because something is complex in the real world doesn't mean it is somehow math-resistant.

 

[thursday]

^very eloquently put.

A process that examines itself as it evolves and re-evaluates its conclusions based on its new understanding won't stagnate.

the problem with religious faith, mythology, and illogical assumptions is that they are not open to revision. the only thing you can do with catechisms carved in stone is memorize them and repeat them. this involves very little mental activity and doesn't stimulate intellectual growth. very little progress can be made this way.

fruitful discussions and productive discourse all require reason and logical arguments to be presented by both sides. if you abandon reason then you have no way of verifying whether your beliefs are correct or not, you can only speculate and assume that what you believe is true. that just doesn't seem like a very sound way of obtaining knowledge.

 

[_high_life_]

Science is the worder of the mechanics in our universe while ignoring the mechanicanical mastermind.

 

[thursday]

yea, ignoring our non-existent mythological creator.

 

[_high_life_]

our ignorance is universal.

 

[Cex]

Please elaborate.

Because at the moment, you sound like you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

But hey, we're all ignorant scientists right? We can't examine the universe on it's real terms? Subjectivity and quantum unlocalities are the real substance of the world?

 

[PGTips]

If our ignorance was universal, would that not imply we know nothing. Obviously we do not know nothing, we know at least something.

Even if there is a "mechanical mastermind", why does that somehow preclude the gathering of at least some knowledge?

Take a TV for instance. Someone obviously put it together, a "mechanical mastermind" so to speak. Does that prevent us from taking a TV apart, examining the components, understanding how they work, then being able to make TVs of our own? No of course not. True, we do not know the mind or thought of "The mechanical mastermind", but that does not prevent us from aquiring knowledge.

Or was your statement an attempt at sounding profound when infact it meant nothing?