Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → The purpose of science

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 06:54 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 01:36 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 02:37 AM
New Britain
October 21, 2025, 01:10 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
October 18, 2025, 09:54 AM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 07, 2025, 09:50 AM
What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM
Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM
Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM
Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The purpose of science

 (Read 5843 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • The purpose of science
     OP - January 30, 2010, 12:49 AM
    In the discussion on consciousness the issue of the purpose and goal of science came up. I sensed there was this idea that every single question that can be asked of reality can only be answered by science and that reasoned logical philosophy is useless for this task. This is very surprising to me and I thought i'd start a thread to see what people feel the purpose of science is.

    To me, science is an enterprise that establishes theoretical algorithms based upon observable data. These algorithms take the form of falsifiable hypotheses written in either mathematical or causal language. That is the extent of the scientific enterprise, it cannot and should not have anything to say on ontological/ metaphysical questions. For science to venture into questions of these kind is to betray its own purpose.

    I submit to all of you that science is incredibly useful and has brought us some of the greatest innovations in thought throughout history, but science cannot answer the fundamental questions. Those questions remain in the field of metaphysics.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #1 - January 30, 2010, 01:09 AM
    Quote from: z10 on January 30, 2010, 12:49 AM
    I submit to all of you that science is incredibly useful and has brought us some of the greatest innovations in thought throughout history, but science cannot answer the fundamental questions. Those questions remain in the field of metaphysics.

    What, like questions about health, how we evolved, how the earth stays suspended in thin air?  I think it does a far better job than philosophy.

    That said I like philosophy - in fact it was the deeper philosophical arguments that lead to me to discount Islam.  However as a subject and also in debate I find it a less useful tool as its subjective,  there are no straightforward answers and it tends to get horribly convoluted.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #2 - January 30, 2010, 02:34 AM
    Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind?

    Personally I have a hard time seeing how you can answer the bigger questions without science, but I also realize that science without philosophy doesn't always explain much. The details, but not the big picture.
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #3 - January 30, 2010, 05:41 AM
    I'm not a very philosophical person myself. For a materialistic person like me, science does answer pretty much all the questions I care about.

    Kant and Nietzsche didn't help build my 24" computer monitor or Mass Effect 2!!  cool2
    Quote from: thinkfree on September 28, 2010, 07:58 PM
    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #4 - January 30, 2010, 06:27 AM
    IMO, Anything to which the scientific method can be applied is in the purview of science. I have no idea if ontology falls under this category. I looked up ontology on wikipedia but didn't have enough time to really understand the idea.

    I like of your description of science producing "theoretical algorithms based upon observable data", but not quite sure how anything we possibly want to know is left out of this. The "data" for a scientific project can be anything at all.

  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #5 - January 30, 2010, 08:42 AM
    Quote from: IsLame on January 30, 2010, 01:09 AM
    What, like questions about health, how we evolved, how the earth stays suspended in thin air?  I think it does a far better job than philosophy.

    That said I like philosophy - in fact it was the deeper philosophical arguments that lead to me to discount Islam.  However as a subject and also in debate I find it a less useful tool as its subjective,  there are no straightforward answers and it tends to get horribly convoluted.



    My dear Islame, surely you are pulling my leg!  Huh?

    Philosophy is not a method of debate, it's not even the cultivation of a subjective opinion. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, the search for truth, the need for a complete world view! I dare say, philosophy is the highest calling for a man of intellect, the ultimate life of soulsearching and truth seeking. Philosophy is to cry out loud to the world that it can keep its riches but all I want is the answers! Philosophy, my friend, is necessary for the completely examined life, for the breaking of idols, dogma and superstition, for the road to happiness; please let us not be so hasty to dismiss this passion of mankind.  Smiley

    Also, let us not think of philosophy as opposed to science. Evolution is not attacked by philosophers because it works as a theory to explain the speciation of life. However, this doesn't mean evolution is fact - I know Dawkins likes shouting this to everyone whenever he can but evolution is not a fact. It is a current working model that has done remarkably well to explain natural phenomena and so we have kept the model. There is no need to confuse the actual purpose of evolution as an abstractly conceptualised falsifiable hypothesis with the metaphysical questions related to this field. The question of how life diversifies and is affected by its environment is answered satisfactorily by evolution, but it cannot and should not try and answer the question of why life is.
    Similarly, Einstein may have shown us how gravity is basically the movement of mass/energy along the geodesics created in space/time but that doesn't mean that Einstein answered the question of why there is energy at all, or why our universe has a geometrical structure, or why space and time must be metaphysically linked in this fashion. These are all questions that scientists should not be worrying about, they have their own field of study and should not be bogged down by metaphysical questions.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #6 - January 30, 2010, 09:41 AM
    Quote from: z10 on January 30, 2010, 12:49 AM
    I submit to all of you that science is incredibly useful and has brought us some of the greatest innovations in thought throughout history, but science cannot answer the fundamental questions.Those questions remain in the field of metaphysics .

    Ultimately why not? The greatest strength of science lies in its method, in the fact that it is not dogmatic and that it evolves continuously.
    On the other hand "metaphysics" is vague at best, does not rely on empirical evidence and its ideas are ultimately unprovable.
    At least this is the way I see it.

    Quote from: z10 on January 30, 2010, 08:42 AM
    Also, let us not think of philosophy as opposed to science.

    A lot of philosophy imho is science (experimental/empirical). Another tool in the quest for The Truth.

    "The very way we perceive the problem is a part of the problem."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2ICPQNqPSg




  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #7 - January 30, 2010, 11:56 AM
    Z10 - I wasnt joking.  The academic subject of philosophy has never provided any answers for me, it merely provides sources of reference and presents arguments in an already well presented, articulated & structured format. 

    Philoshopy is personal & subjective as you can find opposing conclusions depending on who's work you read. Therein lies the problem,  it can never provide you with answers, such as circular discussions about its practicality & context.

    Science on the other hand cannot contradict itself so its a seamless, replicable & proven method to discovering the truth, thats why its been a far more successful tool.

    Thats why I think philosophy is best when it applies the scientific method to its methodology. 
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #8 - January 30, 2010, 12:51 PM
    All that is Science was once Philosophy. Philosophy may seem useless, but only because once Philosophy starts getting somewhere, the topic of discussion becomes something other than Philosophy, and Philosophy moves on to other vague and mysterious questions.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #9 - January 30, 2010, 01:48 PM
    philosophy is the dustbin of science  Wink
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #10 - January 30, 2010, 03:52 PM
    (just joking by the way   cool2)
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #11 - January 30, 2010, 08:21 PM
    To my knowledge, science so far is the closest and most empirical method for finding out what is going on. We musn't forget that science was once a part of philosophy. Once the tools for testing had been developed and tested, science became a seperate branch altogether.

    Philosophy is brilliant, in that it gives us the capapability of using reason and thinking things through properly. It still has it's uses and should not be taken lightly, particularly in the area of ethics and logic. The method is grounded in reason which is what gives it it's edge.

    I'm not entirely sure if it can answer those ultimate questions, but it can sure help someone to work out or choose to live by a philosophical system grounded in reason rather than those based in scripture. Two systems that come to mind are existentialism and utilitarianism. Both of which are grounded in reason and have it's uses.

    Unlike religion, a philosophical system doesn't need to be taken as a whole and is not enforced upon us the way faith does. There are no penalties attached if one decides that existentialism or utilitarianism isn't for them.
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #12 - January 31, 2010, 12:55 AM
    Quote from: IsLame on January 30, 2010, 11:56 AM
    Z10 - I wasnt joking.  The academic subject of philosophy has never provided any answers for me, it merely provides sources of reference and presents arguments in an already well presented, articulated & structured format. 

    Philoshopy is personal & subjective as you can find opposing conclusions depending on who's work you read. Therein lies the problem,  it can never provide you with answers, such as circular discussions about its practicality & context.

    Science on the other hand cannot contradict itself so its a seamless, replicable & proven method to discovering the truth, thats why its been a far more successful tool.

    Thats why I think philosophy is best when it applies the scientific method to its methodology. 


    I don't think science has been a far better tool at discovering the truth, Giordano Bruno laid out his conception of an infinite, eternal, acentric universe over 400 years ago when the scientists of his time (like Galileo) still though the sun was the centre of the universe. He used the methods of science and was a keen observer himself but his greatest quality was not the mathematization of all knowledge but the reasoned application of wisdom to observation. Today we have cosmologists like Steinhardt writing a book called "Endless Universe" in which he basically comes to the same conclusion 400 years late.

    That is just one example among many...
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #13 - April 05, 2010, 10:54 AM
    To add another thought to what I've said above, necessary truths are also outside of the scope of science.
    To take the example of a necessary a posteriori identity such as water = h2o it can be seen that this identity is beyond questionable, it is unfalsifiable. As science can only trade in falsifiable statements this statement (though obviously true and rational and an integral part of the epistemological framework of mankind) is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Once this statement is established as a Kripkean identity, it cannot be falsified, it is true in all possible worlds and so it cannot be hypothesised against nor theorised about. Science, in this case, has reached a dead end it cannot breach and if it attempts this manouvre it will overstep its own mandate and become internally inconsistent.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #14 - April 05, 2010, 02:12 PM
    why is water = h2o not falsifiable? one simply needs to make the necessary observation to falsify it. Am I missing something?
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #15 - April 05, 2010, 02:13 PM
    Natural science: The observation and  discovery of the nature, the understanding and explanation of natural phenomena based on rationality (= according to the scientific method)
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #16 - April 05, 2010, 02:24 PM
    Quote from: Bodna on April 05, 2010, 02:12 PM
    why is water = h2o not falsifiable? one simply needs to make the necessary observation to falsify it. Am I missing something?

    I second that. It is pretty easy to falsify.
    Also, the composition/formula of many compounds (including water) were found empirically; that a molecule of water consists of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms is testable, it is empirical knowledge and explained by theory.
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #17 - April 08, 2010, 11:11 AM
    The water = h2o identity was just an example, however, a very good one. You both raise good points, it is true that the identity was discovered through experiential means and not through pure reasoning alone. However, that is an integral part of what I was saying above. The necessary truth of this identity is known a posteriori, it is a necessary fact that holds because we experience it the way we do. Until Kripke came along in the 70s and wrote his infamous book Naming and Necessity such a necessary truth was deemed impossible and your concerns are understandable - if water is known to be h2o through empirical means then how can it be unfalsifiable?
    The argument that Kripke offers is fairly simple though. Water is defined as h2o by our experience of water and all we know of it. However, because water is seen as h2o in definitional terms it is literally impossible to think of water as being anything other than h2o or for h2o to be anything other than water (besides ice and steam of course). By the very definition and experience of the entity water it is h2o, and no change can be made to this identity. I'm sorry I haven't done a very good job of explaining this and if you guys are interested in furthering this discussion this link will provide a better description of the idea:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rigid-designators/#NecPos

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #18 - April 10, 2010, 08:14 PM
    Quote
    However, because water is seen as h2o in definitional terms it is literally impossible to think of water as being anything other than h2o or for h2o to be anything other than water (besides ice and steam of course). By the very definition and experience of the entity water it is h2o, and no change can be made to this identity.

    Hmmm.. not sure if I exactly understand what you mean.
    However, the water molecule as it is supposed, as H2O, is not  just a random defintion. It directly refers to the nature of water and says something about the properties water must have, so you can make predictions from it which also can be falsified. For example, the H2O molecule is necessarily a dipole making water a polar solvent (prediction) -  now if water would  actually have properties of a non-polaric solvent, the 'H2O hypothesis' automatically would be disproven.
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #19 - April 24, 2010, 07:25 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on January 30, 2010, 12:51 PM
    All that is Science was once Philosophy. Philosophy may seem useless, but only because once Philosophy starts getting somewhere, the topic of discussion becomes something other than Philosophy, and Philosophy moves on to other vague and mysterious questions.


    Good point. I think we tend to artificially seperate philosophy from other disciplines, when in fact it should be taken in accordance. Philosophy is essentially merely "thinking outside the box" when it comes to most things, hence "PhD." For the rest, it is "thinking outside the box" when it comes to the consideration of consciousness and purpose.
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #20 - April 30, 2010, 09:54 PM
    Entirely why I'm inclined to think Philosophy shouldn't even exist as a separate discipline. I am studying it as a separate discipline nonetheless  Tongue
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: The purpose of science
     Reply #21 - May 01, 2010, 12:04 AM
    Haha well so am I, though I draw on a lot of other areas in my research.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »