• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What does science do?

Yes mathematics and logic are one in the same. The only point I'm getting at here is... reality is not always logical. If it was... it would make sense. There are many times when nature and natural events that take place, defy logical reasoning. Love would be a perfect example of a time where logic will get you no where.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying math isn't right. I'm saying it's one side of the coin. It's not the complete picture of how the world works. And science! believe it or not, must be backed by math. Physics is mathematical, you cannot tell me it has *nothing* to do with math.

Any theory in science, will not even be considered without a mathematical model to back it. I see that as a problem. I realize most people do not. I'm over trying to explain it at this point.

To reiterate, Math, logic, reason. They are one side of the picture. If you ignore their opposite, you will never understand the world around you. Science at this point in time, only looks at half the picture. And again, I'm not saying the half they look at is wrong in any way. I'm just saying it's half.
 
Last edited:
science doesn't try to explain subjective experiences such as love.

and i think we'd have huge problems in the scientific community if people accepted theories and models that weren't logically supported. logic and reason are how we discern truth from fallacy. it's something we use in all aspects of our lives not just in math and science.

what is the "other side" of the picture which people are ignoring when they act with reason?
 
Last edited:
Well love is true.

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

Isn't science based off subjective observation in the first place?
 
pa.. said:
Well love is true.
Click to expand...
love is cliche. i don't know what you mean by love is true, or what that has to do with what we're discussing.

Why doesn't science try to explain subjective experiences? They are part of the universe?
Click to expand...
because they're subjective experiences. that means each individual experiences it differently.

there are studies being done on how the brain works and what biological processes cause certain emotions, mental states, etc., but something like "love" is a broad subjective concept which wouldn't make sense to use science to explain. different people define love differently. it's like saying "why doesn't science explain beauty?" or "why doesn't science explain art?" trying to use science to understand the concept of "love"(not the actual chemical processes which may occur when you feel 'love' which can be likened to a chemical addiction as some studies have shown) is like trying to use emotions to explain calculus. it's illogical.

Isn't science based off subjective observation in the first place?
Click to expand...
science is based off of quantifiable data collected through as objective of a process as possible.
 
"Most crucial of all, science must replace its enamorment with objectivity--the idea that the best way to study nature is to be detached, analytical, and dispassionately objective-- with a more participatory approach. The importance of this shift has been stressed by numerous researchers including Harman..... In a universe in which the consciousness of a physicist affects the reality of a subatomic particle, the attitude of a doctor affects whether or not a placebo works, the mind of an experimenter affects the way a machine operates, and the imaginal can spill over into physical reality, we can no longer pretend that we are seperate from that which we are studying."
 
pa.. said:
To clarify, what I ment by science's track record being bad... I'm referring to things such as... Newtons ideas of a universe that is of complete perfection. A universe where there are parts and peices that work together like a clock, and if we can just break it down to the peices and understand them individually (using math)... then in turn... we could understand the entire thing.
Click to expand...

just so you know, they still teach quadratics and calculus in high school, and you can still use it to measure planetary motion, its not as acurate as einsteins method, but its still damn accurate.

and Newton was basing his static universe on the data that was available to him.

As we make further advances in technology, we are able to better perceive the data shown to us, or we are able to delve deeper and find data that was previously not available to us.

pa.. said:
Why doesn't science try to explain subjective experiences? They are part of the universe?
Click to expand...

because they are subjective. idiot.
 
So subjectivity is outside of the realm of science now?

What a shame the entire universe is subjective at some level. (and objective too)
 
pa.. said:
"Most crucial of all, science must replace its enamorment with objectivity--the idea that the best way to study nature if to be detached, analytical, and dispassionately objective-- with a more participatory approach. The importance of this shift has been stressed by numerous researchers including Harman..... In a universe in which the consciousness of a physicist affects the reality of a subatomic particle, the attitude of a doctor affects whether or not a placebo works, the mind of an experimenter affects the way a machine operates, and the imaginal can spill over into physical reality, we can no longer pretend that we are seperate from that which we are studying."
Click to expand...
nonsense. how would a scientist produce accurate and reliable data by not being objective? should scientists just have faith that their hypothesis is correct and not follow the empirical method?

you should be more critical of things you read. think about what this guy is actually promoting? is he even promoting anything or just spouting platitudes? does the placebo effect have any bearing on why we shouldn't go about studying the universe in an objective manner? what does quantum physics have to do with his argument?
 
pa.. said:
So subjectivity is outside of the realm of science now?

What a shame the entire universe is subjective at some level. (and objective too)
Click to expand...
huh?

did you even read my post?
 
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?

haha.. this is great. You all will never even give the opposite side of the coin a chance... it's so pointless even talking about it with you. You all are so convinced that there is nothing to be found outside of scientific logic and what not... but then you go off and do drugs to alter your perceptions of the world? for what? to see subjectivity at it's fullest? to forget all the garbage you've been filled up with... maybe it's all just a bunch of crap in the end. Maybe there really is something out there worth experiencing that cannot be explained.
 
yes, but if you would have read my post u'd realize that what you're saying makes no sense.

concepts like love, art, beauty are subjective and are experienced differently between individuals. it's not the purpose of science to study these broad human concepts. physics, chemistry, biology are not subjective experiences or cultural concepts. they're hard sciences. whether or not you can use science to explain subjective experiences has no bearing on the validity of scientific research.
 
yeah I understand.

I'm very biased.

I of course see art, religion, music, subjective experience as being just as important if not more important than the scientific stuff. I actually dropped out of college because of it. (Used to be a math major.) yippie.. give me life instead.

I'll stop talking now.. promise..
 
pa.. said:
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?
Click to expand...
what are you talking about?

haha.. this is great. You all will never even give the opposite side of the coin a chance... it's so pointless even talking about it with you. You all are so convinced that there is nothing to be found outside of scientific logic and what not... but then you go off and do drugs to alter your perceptions of the world? for what? to see subjectivity at it's fullest? to forget all the garbage you've been filled up with... maybe it's all just a bunch of crap in the end. Maybe there really is something out there worth experiencing that cannot be explained.
Click to expand...
first off, i've been refuting your posts with reasoned arguments. what's wrong with that? i didn't just say "you're wrong, and that's final."

secondly, doing drugs has nothing to do with what we're discussing. i don't do drugs to forget about what i learn in my academic pursuits. i don't do drugs so i can be an irrational person. i have very logical reasons to do drugs.

there are plenty of human experiences that i don't think science can explain. i think that they can be logically analyzed and better understood by applying our faculties of reason to them. but that's really neither here nor there. you were talking about how there aren't perfect lines or perfect circles in the universe so we can't use science to study the universe. then you started talking about how science can't explain love. and now you're inferring that there's something wrong with science because scientists try to be objective in their research.

i'm sorry, but some people are just logical] individuals and require sound logic to be convinced of certain things. some people don't just embrace anything that anyone says just because it sounds good at first glance. some people choose to use their analytical minds to assess whether something "makes sense" to them before accepting it as true. you just haven't provided very strong arguments in support of your point. but i guess you assume that i should just believe you even though your arguments seem illogical and flawed to me. but to me, the fact that you are trying to use a logical argument to convince me undermines your point that there's something wrong with embracing reason. why don't you try the other approach which you seem to think that scientists should take to in their research?
 
pa.. said:
yeah I understand.

I'm very biased.

I of course see art, religion, music, subjective experience as being just as important if not more important than the scientific stuff. I actually dropped out of college because of it. (Used to be a math major.) yippie.. give me life instead.

I'll stop talking now.. promise..
Click to expand...
i think religion is illogical and self-contradictory in most cases. perhaps that's why you feel that too much reason is a bad thing.

but i do think that philosophy, art, music, love, and human relationships are all very important. and i think most scientists i think would agree.

what you were arguing earlier was that science, reason, and objectivity are the wrong way to approach learning about the universe. i don't understand how you can ascertain truth from falsehood without reason.

art, music, and love are great and all, but they cannot teach us how the universe work. they enrich our lives and give life meaning, but you can't use love, art, or music, or subjective experiences to learn how to cure diseases, or understand how the universe works. science is the most reliable way we can attain objective truths.

and once again, no one ever claimed science could teach us about love, or art, or that nothing outside of science matters.
 
I'm not a very reasonable person obviously. I mean.. I quit studying math because I came to the conclusion that it was pointless.. My logical arguments are illogical, my analogies "suck" and KemicalBurn thinks I'm an idiot.

I think I'll just embrace that instead of trying to explain myself any further.

I'm not trying to convince you guys of anything. I already said it was pointless for me to sit here and try... I don't even know why I continue talking about it? Maybe because I believe what I'm saying... I don't know. I don't care anymore.

I thought this was a philosophy forum, so I tried to play devils advocate and question some of the things in this thread. I think it's gone way to far at this point. I'm not even sure what I'm trying to prove (if anything) anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top