The Boundaries of Science

[_Gorman]

There are no 'boundaries' to science. Well, I guess I should say, the only 'boundaries' to science are the rules of science.

Agreed, but I think you must acknowledge that there are some theories that are fully trusted while there are others that are not trusted in their current state. It is this boundary that we are exploring here (I know, I didn't explain myself too well in the OP).

[_Who Knows]

There are no 'boundaries' to science. Well, I guess I should say, the only 'boundaries' to science are the rules of science.

Agreed, but I think you must acknowledge that there are some theories that are fully trusted while there are others that are not trusted in their current state. It is this boundary that we are exploring here (I know, I didn't explain myself too well in the OP).

Can you give some examples? I understand there are trusted and untrusted theories, but that doesn't have anything to do with religion or any boundary to science, rather, the application of science.

Maybe if you give some examples, it'll help.

[_silentkid]

Maybe if you give some examples, it'll help.

Agreed. Maybe supply a theory you feel lies outside each of your boundaries.

[_Gorman]

The argument here seems to be that since science has boundaries (areas that it will not or cannot penetrate explanatory) that this is somehow an argument for religion.

I don't think this was ever the argument. The argument is that science has a boundary beyond which are varying degrees of uncertainty. Science cannot discredit religions beyond this boundary because they lack sufficient evidence. Whether an individual thinks that religious claims are valid at that point or not is for the the individual to decide. Religions cannot put forth any evidence to support their claims scientifically, so they are in a different category.

I grant you that there are things that science most likely will never explain, but in my mind that does not help the case of religion at all.

I agree, but it does make science incapable of authoritatively discrediting religion beyond some 'boundary'.

For example, some scientists believe that the many factors that contribute to weather patterns are so complicated, numerous and minute that they may never be fully modeled. Thus the inner workings of weather may be beyond scientific understand. But this does not at all yield the idea that the rain gods controls the weather. If science cannot explain it, it does not automatically fall into the dominion of religion.

Correct.

Religions claim to derive power, authority or knowledge from some mystic force out there. you seem to be saying that since there is an "out there" beyond science that supports religion. This is like saying: "people keep money in banks, there are lots of banks, therefore I have money." But to extend this metaphor, we have yet to establish that banks or money exist (figuratively speaking).

As to the argument that apparent contradiction between religion and science can be resolved in favor of religion: can you give me one example of this happening, ever?

John

I can't think of a case right of the top of my head. I don't think this is because it has never or will never happen, but because science and religion don't usually conflict (fundamentally speaking of course).

[_silentkid]

I don't think this was ever the argument. The argument is that science has a boundary beyond which are varying degrees of uncertainty. Science cannot discredit religions beyond this boundary because they lack sufficient evidence. Whether an individual thinks that religious claims are valid at that point or not is for the the individual to decide. Religions cannot put forth any evidence to support their claims scientifically, so they are in a different category.

I assume you are familiar with Gould's NOMA argument. It seems to me that this is the position you are taking. Am I correct in this assumption?

[_John Larsen]

I agree, but it does make science incapable of authoritatively discrediting religion beyond some 'boundary'.

But if Religion can call bunk when science makes a claim outside of these boundaries, can't science also call bunk when religion makes a claim outside of these same boundaries?

Or do you think that science and religion have different boundaries?

John

[_Gorman]

Einstein came up with new theories that threw our intuitive understanding of space and time on its head, but with a remarkable degree of precision perfectly explains every piece of data we’ve been able to throw at it.

This is a good example of a theory (classical mechanics) that we thought (at the time) was well inside the boundary of scientific certainty but was subsequently shown to be incorrect by relativity. The experiments remained unchanged because they are inherently more reliable while the conclusions or metaphysical interpretations were incorrect.

Now, one could argue that we shouldn’t “look beyond the mark” and get too worked up and avoid taking an electron microscope (or telescope) to these relatively obscure points. Indeed, that seems to be the way of faith; don’t test your beliefs—don’t push them to the limit to see what happens. They’ll even do this with physics—Mormons will occasionally speculate that Einstein must have been wrong about the nature of space and time because God couldn’t be a space traveler who hears our prayers if Einstein’s right.

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.

[_John Larsen]

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.

By suggesting that religion is top down you are begging the question that religion is correct (hence at the "top"). I don't think you can give it any direction, or propositional grounding at all. It is true the science is grounded. Religion has no foundation.

John

[_Gorman]

There are no 'boundaries' to science. Well, I guess I should say, the only 'boundaries' to science are the rules of science.

Agreed, but I think you must acknowledge that there are some theories that are fully trusted while there are others that are not trusted in their current state. It is this boundary that we are exploring here (I know, I didn't explain myself too well in the OP).

Can you give some examples? I understand there are trusted and untrusted theories, but that doesn't have anything to do with religion or any boundary to science, rather, the application of science.

Maybe if you give some examples, it'll help.

OK, but it is somewhat subjective.

I would consider String Theory on the very untrusted side of the spectrum. I think this is mostly due to lack of testability. As far as I know, the fact that it can simplify some Particle Physics calculations is the only basis in reality that string theory even has.

As for trusted theories, I personally don't think that we can ever fully trust any theory. That being said, I would consider Electromagnetism as one of the more trusted theories around.

[_Gorman]

I assume you are familiar with Gould's NOMA argument. It seems to me that this is the position you are taking. Am I correct in this assumption?

I am actually not familiar with NOMA. I quickly read about it on wikipedia, and would say that I probably don't necessarily agree that complete separation is the ultimate case (I like to think that science can eventually answer the types of questions that religions propose). I probably would agree that the two are separated at this moment in time, but only because of the lack of information that either side has access to (outside their current realms).