4 ms·

There are no non-scientific questions, are there?

keiferski 3y ago
Little more complicated than that. Here’s a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
lliamander 3y ago
You just asked one.
xereeto 3y ago
Sure there are. "Is the universe really billions of years old, or did it pop into existence three seconds ago in its current state including all of your memories?" It's impossible to answer this question scientifically because no empirical test could ever possibly be devised.
- austinjp 3y ago
  Funny, that's a variety of Russell's Teapot, which stemmed from philosophical arguments about religion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- theelous3 3y ago
  Also known as Last Tuesdayism, where the universe happened last Tuesday. I and other intellectuals consider this ridiculous. It was in fact last Thursday.
A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
Metaphysics and ethics in philosophy are non-scientific. And these are extremely important things. Religion, which is folk metaphysics and folk ethics, is, to billions of people now living on this planet, more important and relevant to their daily lives than science is.
_0ffh 3y ago
Science only gives us an idea of "What is?", it does not really help with the question of "What ought to be?". Proper science is value neutral.
- psychoslave 3y ago
  > Proper science is value neutral. Is that supposed to be a neutral scientific statement?
  - HKH2 3y ago
    Right. Science can't stand on its own. It can never be purely objective.
    - _0ffh 3y ago
      Any single player (scientist) cannot be purely objective. Which is exactly why diversity of thought is essential for science (the process) to work. Scientists with different points of view can then challenge each other on the basis of evidence. When you take viewpoint diversity away this process breaks down and you are left with mere ideology pretending at science.
  - _0ffh 3y ago
    I am not a positivist, so that statement is quite okay for me to make. I can judge a process that aspires to be scientific by how likely it is to result in an approximation of objective truth.
seventhtiger 3y ago
Science has come against its own limits many times. Hume's problem of induction shows you that every scientific conclusion is a leap of faith. Scientists try to make it as small as possible of a leap, but it is still a leap. Chaotic systems require more percision than physics allows, making many systems theoretically unpredictable. Having accurate models is useless. If you have a model that's theoretically accurate but requires more accuracy than the universe actually has then what does that even mean? Where does that information come from? Qunatum mechanics was basically the end of causality as we know it. Forget correlation does not imply causation. There is no causation. Godel's incompleteness, Turing's halting, prove that formal systems have limits and that even logic itself cannot go everywhere.

Little more complicated than that. Here’s a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

lliamander 3y ago

You just asked one.

xereeto 3y ago

Sure there are. "Is the universe really billions of years old, or did it pop into existence three seconds ago in its current state including all of your memories?" It's impossible to answer this question scientifically because no empirical test could ever possibly be devised.

austinjp 3y ago
Funny, that's a variety of Russell's Teapot, which stemmed from philosophical arguments about religion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
theelous3 3y ago
Also known as Last Tuesdayism, where the universe happened last Tuesday. I and other intellectuals consider this ridiculous. It was in fact last Thursday.

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago

Metaphysics and ethics in philosophy are non-scientific. And these are extremely important things. Religion, which is folk metaphysics and folk ethics, is, to billions of people now living on this planet, more important and relevant to their daily lives than science is.

_0ffh 3y ago

Science only gives us an idea of "What is?", it does not really help with the question of "What ought to be?". Proper science is value neutral.

psychoslave 3y ago
> Proper science is value neutral. Is that supposed to be a neutral scientific statement?
- HKH2 3y ago
  Right. Science can't stand on its own. It can never be purely objective.
  - _0ffh 3y ago
    Any single player (scientist) cannot be purely objective. Which is exactly why diversity of thought is essential for science (the process) to work. Scientists with different points of view can then challenge each other on the basis of evidence. When you take viewpoint diversity away this process breaks down and you are left with mere ideology pretending at science.
- _0ffh 3y ago
  I am not a positivist, so that statement is quite okay for me to make. I can judge a process that aspires to be scientific by how likely it is to result in an approximation of objective truth.

seventhtiger 3y ago

Science has come against its own limits many times. Hume's problem of induction shows you that every scientific conclusion is a leap of faith. Scientists try to make it as small as possible of a leap, but it is still a leap. Chaotic systems require more percision than physics allows, making many systems theoretically unpredictable. Having accurate models is useless. If you have a model that's theoretically accurate but requires more accuracy than the universe actually has then what does that even mean? Where does that information come from? Qunatum mechanics was basically the end of causality as we know it. Forget correlation does not imply causation. There is no causation. Godel's incompleteness, Turing's halting, prove that formal systems have limits and that even logic itself cannot go everywhere.