The Boundaries of Science

[_Gorman]

The proposition consciousness survives past death is easily testable by science. Science has gone a long way to prove that consciousness arises from the brain. Once dead, the brain does not produce activity. Consciousness and brain function are well within the boundaries of science. If you contend that physical entities such as brains, fish or mountains also have properties that are not visible, cannot be measured and are entirely in the realm of religion--you cannot then call it off bounds to science. The burdon is on you to demonstrate that conciousness is not a product of the brain. This has clearly not been done.

I disagree with the bold portion. There is no guarantee that science can ever 'prove' anything metaphysical in nature, it can only have positive evidence stacked in its favor. I may appear that consciousness comes from the brain, but that is based on a lot of assumptions. I agree that religions have the burden of providing evidence to their claims, but you really can't ever say that science has proven something outside of simple cause and effect experiments (probably not even then). Again, Classical Mechanics is the example to look at here. Everyone thought it was proven to be true, but it was not the case. I would say that there was a lot more evidence for classical mechanics than there is for consciousness arising from the brain (I'm a physicist and not a Biologist, so I may be wrong).

you second proposition naked and alone: "God exists" cannot be disproved by science. However, a religious persons claim that God exists is well within the bounds of science. The distinction is subtle, but important. There are certain ideas that are outside of the ability of science to prove or disprove. But once a religious individual claims the idea to be a truth, the must establish that truth somehow. This claim to the knowledge of said truth is easily in the realm of science. For example, if a religious person claims to get all of their knowledge from a ghost, we can test to see if this is a physical possibility.

This is assuming the thing 'ghost' is fully understood by science. All a religious person really has to do is just leave their definition of God vague. If a religious person says that they get some sort of information from something called 'God', then there is little science can do about it, providing the information is not directly testable by science, which is generally the case for religions.

Religious people do not say that there might be a God, they say they know there is a God and then proceed to tell you how they know. This entire process is open to scientific inquiry.

John

This is assuming that the process of how they found out about God is testable by science. The majority of processes to discover God that I have heard of are firmly outside of scientific realms (i.e. you cannot test it).

[_Gorman]

By saying God is fair game for science it implies science can evaluate God, but it can not. That isn't a shortcoming of science methodology but rather a short coming in critical reasoning by those making claims for a God or other supernatural claims, in that they offer nothing for verification.

It is up to those making God claims or afterlife claims to offer explanations which can be verified. I.e. predict what God will do and that can be tested for and verified. Religious supernatural claims offer no predictive value for phenomena.

I agree here entirely.

[_Gorman]

It all goes back to my post about the rules of science.

If anyone would care to present something 'religious' according to the rules of science, then science could test it. However, these sorts of things usually don't pan out (studies on the effects of prayer, healing, etc.). And then the believers say something like 'god won't let scientists prove he exists' or something like that.

Present something according to the rules of science, and it's within it's boundaries. If you don't, or can't, then it's outside the scope of science (whether it's religion or anything else - aliens, karma, santa, etc.).

I agree here as well.

[_Gorman]

Of course I agree that scientific theories can be wrong. I would say that it is likely that science might not ever figure out all of the ultimate laws of physics.

All I am saying is that the realm of science entails matter, energy, space, and time. If something involves matter, energy, space, and time, then science can study it. It might not completely figure it out, but it can certainly try to observe it and quantify it.

Can science test whether or not “God” exists? Define what the name “God” refers to is in terms of matter, energy, space, and time, and we can talk about how the existence of God could be tested. Does consciousness survive past death? If you can coherently explain what consciousness past death means in terms of matter, energy, space and time, then we can talk about how to test for that.

Agreed. Religious people just need to keep a generic definition of God to stay firmly outside science's boundaries. At that point, neither religion nor science can be verified.

[_Gorman]

Saying that you trust science when it talks about things 'larger than an ant and smaller than a mountain' implies to me that you 'need' direct confirmation from your own senses in some way for any given scientific principle to be 'truly' confirmed for you. I can understand the notion behind that. But if it is accepted that our own senses provide their own inherent bias (our senses have been developed in order to surivive - not to uncover the 'deep mysteries of the universe'), then the problem in holding that emphasis should be clear.

I guess by listing these boundaries, I'm not necessarily trying to give emphasis to our senses, but trying to give emphasis to experiments. We have tested things around us and directly accessible to us in multiple different ways. We hope to be able to understand any biases in the hundreds of experiments done by using many different conditions and instruments. When things are not directly accessible in some way, the number of different experiments drops drastically. For example, when studying things outside our solar system, we are entirely limited to one type of experimentation (reading electromagnetic radiation from such objects). We assume that electromagnetic radiation is a fine tool to use, but it is an assumption. There is no guarantee that something is fundamentally different in that section of the universe, or that the radiation is somehow adjusted over such long distances. It gives us just one data point where we have many data points closer to home. It is this that causes me to distrust these sort of theories more than others.

Fundamentally, I trust that we see outcomes of experiments as we see them with our senses or measuring devices, and that those experiments are reproducible under the exact same conditions (most of which are unknown). When a myriad of fundamentally different experiments are done on a particular phenomena, then we can begin to trust that what we are seeing is how the object is really acting under certain conditions. Only at that point can we try to find out why things act as they do, and have any sort of trust in our understandings.

[_JAK]

Of course I agree that scientific theories can be wrong. I would say that it is likely that science might not ever figure out all of the ultimate laws of physics.

All I am saying is that the realm of science entails matter, energy, space, and time. If something involves matter, energy, space, and time, then science can study it. It might not completely figure it out, but it can certainly try to observe it and quantify it.

Can science test whether or not “God” exists? Define what the name “God” refers to is in terms of matter, energy, space, and time, and we can talk about how the existence of God could be tested. Does consciousness survive past death? If you can coherently explain what consciousness past death means in terms of matter, energy, space and time, then we can talk about how to test for that.

Agreed. Religious people just need to keep a generic definition of God to stay firmly outside science's boundaries. At that point, neither religion nor science can be verified.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I agree that we should look at details in science, but science and religion are fundamentally different. Science is built from the ground up, while religion is a top down sort of thing. Science should be checked and rechecked all the time because we know the details of its foundation. Religion gives very few details, so it is inherently difficult to look at those details.

Last claim is false. Religion gives many details in claimed sacred scripts. And most of those details are at odds with science.

Also:
PhysicsGuy stated:
I agree that science can call foul on religion when it is venturing outside its realm and into science's realm. If a religion claims that it can levitate a spoon in midair through 'spiritual powers', then science should be brought up to test its claims.

And if religion claims it can raise people from the dead, science should test its claims. And if religion claims it can give people heaven or hell, science should test the claims. etc.


Also:
PhysicsGuy stated:
There is no guarantee that science can ever 'prove' anything metaphysical in nature, it can only have positive evidence stacked in its favor. I may appear that consciousness comes from the brain, but that is based on a lot of assumptions. I agree that religions have the burden of providing evidence to their claims, but you really can't ever say that science has proven something outside of simple cause and effect experiments (probably not even then).

No evidence has been supplied to support “metaphysical in nature.” You assume that which has not been established -- metaphysical anything.

Your absurd comment: “...may appear that consciousness comes from the brain” has been established. Not a shred of evidence supports another claim about where “consciousness comes from...” or occurs.

While we do have “religions” in the plural, the fact is that we have individual religious groups which make different claims and claims which are contradictory to one another. Failure to provide “evidence for their claims” is failure in burden of proof.

What we know today of “cause and effect” is not, as you claim, “simple.” The complexity of multiple causes and multiple effects is well documented.

Also:
PhysicsGuy stated:
Religious people just need to keep a generic definition of God to stay firmly outside science's boundaries. At that point, neither religion nor science can be verified.

The obfuscation is evasion. It fails as a defense of religion.

“Religious people” hardly keep such “a generic definition of God.”

On the contrary, religions asserting God claims specify with detail. Such religions have God creating stuff and living things, God talking to people, and God controlling historical events. These religions also have people manipulating God to their benefit and to the genocide of (other) people whom they assert God opposes.

Hence, your attempt to obfuscate and evade fails. Religions intend to be pervasive and claim to be. Their various scripts are often very specific in their claims. “Religious people” cannot escape the burden of proof. Attempts to do so are disingenuous or dishonest.

JAK

[_Ren]

For example, when studying things outside our solar system, we are entirely limited to one type of experimentation (reading electromagnetic radiation from such objects). We assume that electromagnetic radiation is a fine tool to use, but it is an assumption.

Ahh - I think I see what your saying.
So a good example might be - say - determing the composision of stars purely by analysing the light eminating from them.
Would this be a good example? You would trust our conclusions more on the compositions of stars if there were 'other methods of inspection'?

But if that were the case, it wouldn't be literally to do with 'distance' right? As long as we had 'multiple methods of inspection', and you're saying that it's not 'really' about direct sensory perception...

Ahh - but then you say this:

There is no guarantee that something is fundamentally different in that section of the universe, or that the radiation is somehow adjusted over such long distances.

Well, I think this comes right back to the thread we had going on the 'other board' that delt with the issue of faith.
Without any rational reason to think that light does start to behave 'differently' over long distances, why use the possibility to lose confidence in otherwise perfectly sound data and analysis?

[_Gorman]

Without any rational reason to think that light does start to behave 'differently' over long distances, why use the possibility to lose confidence in otherwise perfectly sound data and analysis?

It is because of this fact: when there are more assumptions in a theory, you must naturally have less trust in its conclusions than for a theory with fewer assumptions. The theory may be able to predict the observations we see, but because we are lacking in different types of observations for items outside the boundaries I have mentioned, we must make assumptions to cover for this absence of data. Yes, most assumptions are probably more or less correct, but if even one is incorrect (sometimes by only a small amount), it can change the conclusions of a theory by 180 degrees. We just suffer from an extreme lack of data about very much of anything, and a very low capability to process data. Often in history we were sitting for decades or even centuries before we realized that we had the data under our noses the whole time that would bring about a large change in a theory.

Of course, practically speaking, we must assume our assumptions are correct until shown otherwise, or else we would all just sit down and give up on exploration. That doesn't mean that we should bet the farm on the conclusions of the theories being correct.

[_Gorman]

Of course I agree that scientific theories can be wrong. I would say that it is likely that science might not ever figure out all of the ultimate laws of physics.

All I am saying is that the realm of science entails matter, energy, space, and time. If something involves matter, energy, space, and time, then science can study it. It might not completely figure it out, but it can certainly try to observe it and quantify it.

Can science test whether or not “God” exists? Define what the name “God” refers to is in terms of matter, energy, space, and time, and we can talk about how the existence of God could be tested. Does consciousness survive past death? If you can coherently explain what consciousness past death means in terms of matter, energy, space and time, then we can talk about how to test for that.

Agreed. Religious people just need to keep a generic definition of God to stay firmly outside science's boundaries. At that point, neither religion nor science can be verified.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I agree that we should look at details in science, but science and religion are fundamentally different. Science is built from the ground up, while religion is a top down sort of thing. Science should be checked and rechecked all the time because we know the details of its foundation. Religion gives very few details, so it is inherently difficult to look at those details.

Last claim is false. Religion gives many details in claimed sacred scripts. And most of those details are at odds with science.

Again, I am talking about fundamental religious topics here. Any details religions give about fundamental religious topics (i.e. God exists etc.) are severely lacking detail in a scientific sense. Maybe you should give some examples of things you think are detailed. They will not be detailed enough for science's standards.

Also:
PhysicsGuy stated:
I agree that science can call foul on religion when it is venturing outside its realm and into science's realm. If a religion claims that it can levitate a spoon in midair through 'spiritual powers', then science should be brought up to test its claims.

And if religion claims it can raise people from the dead, science should test its claims. And if religion claims it can give people heaven or hell, science should test the claims. etc.

I agree. If a religious person comes forth with a dead body and claims he can bring it back to life, then it can be studied by science. I suspect that doesn't happen very often.

Also:
PhysicsGuy stated:
There is no guarantee that science can ever 'prove' anything metaphysical in nature, it can only have positive evidence stacked in its favor. I may appear that consciousness comes from the brain, but that is based on a lot of assumptions. I agree that religions have the burden of providing evidence to their claims, but you really can't ever say that science has proven something outside of simple cause and effect experiments (probably not even then).

No evidence has been supplied to support “metaphysical in nature.” You assume that which has not been established -- metaphysical anything.

I believe I have discussed this before with you, but I will again supply evidence to support why science discusses metaphysical topics. If you have a problem with the evidence, tell me.

Metaphysics can include the study of the following topics as well as others not mentioned: mind and matter (we were discussing the study of the brain), time and space, religion and spirituality, abstract objects and mathematics, and cosmology. These were just taken from wikipedia subheadings under metaphysics, and I'm sure there are lots of other topics. If you don't think science has ever dealt with some of these topics, then you are simply incorrect.

Your absurd comment: “...may appear that consciousness comes from the brain” has been established. Not a shred of evidence supports another claim about where “consciousness comes from...” or occurs.

While we do have “religions” in the plural, the fact is that we have individual religious groups which make different claims and claims which are contradictory to one another. Failure to provide “evidence for their claims” is failure in burden of proof.

I am not an expert in Biology or neurology, but I would imagine that the evidence they have for consciousness coming from the brain amounts to showing that without brain activity, people loose consciousness, but without some other organ activity people maintain consciousness until that organ loss affects the brain activity. This merely shows that the brain is vital to consciousness, not that the brain is the origination of consciousness. Religious people could just claim that the 'spirit' is really the origination site of consciousness and the brain is the sole conduit between the spirit and the physical body. The evidence to support this is the same as the evidence to support that the brain is the origination site of consciousness (there is no direct evidence for either, only circumstantial evidence). Scientists just assume that the brain is the origination of consciousness because it is the simplest explanation with the evidence at hand, and there is no reason to bring in a 'spirit'. This is good science, but may or may not be ultimately true.

What we know today of “cause and effect” is not, as you claim, “simple.” The complexity of multiple causes and multiple effects is well documented.

I agree that cause and effect can be both simple and complex. The more variables the more complex, and the less trust we should have in conclusions about such a system.

Also:
PhysicsGuy stated:
Religious people just need to keep a generic definition of God to stay firmly outside science's boundaries. At that point, neither religion nor science can be verified.

The obfuscation is evasion. It fails as a defense of religion.

“Religious people” hardly keep such “a generic definition of God.”

On the contrary, religions asserting God claims specify with detail. Such religions have God creating stuff and living things, God talking to people, and God controlling historical events. These religions also have people manipulating God to their benefit and to the genocide of (other) people whom they assert God opposes.

Hence, your attempt to obfuscate and evade fails. Religions intend to be pervasive and claim to be. Their various scripts are often very specific in their claims. “Religious people” cannot escape the burden of proof. Attempts to do so are disingenuous or dishonest.

JAK

I'm not trying to defend religion, I'm merely stating that religious claims are such that they do not lend themselves easily to scientific scrutiny. Maybe you should give an example of something that you think has enough scientific detail to merit scientific study. The simple statement of "God creating stuff and living things" does not even begin to have enough detail for scientific scrutiny.