5 ms·

I think his point is that these are important questions which science can't speak to.

by NateEag 3y ago

lisper 3y ago
How do you know it can't? What makes you think that these questions are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry?
- andybak 3y ago
  If science is tackling these questions then it's most likely doing so by making non-falsifiable claims. And at that point it's doing philosophy rather than science. And if you want to disagree with the definition of science that I'm using here then that's OK. But at that point, you're also doing philosophy. And all of this is fine because there's nothing wrong with doing philosophy. It's not just a word for "the stuff I don't like".
  - lisper 2y ago
    > If science is tackling these questions then it's most likely doing so by making non-falsifiable claims. Nonsense. General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory make plenty of falsifiable claims. So do current cosmological theories. Not only do they make falsifiable claims, many of their claims are in the process of being falsified right now by the JWST. One of the reasons it's hard for me to take philosophy seriously is that I see too many people defending it by making patently ridiculous assertions. > And if you want to disagree with the definition of science that I'm using here then that's OK. Another ridiculous assertion. You haven't given a definition of science. But it doesn't matter. Whatever your definition of science is, if it does not include GR and QFT and cosmology then it is not not worthy of serious consideration. > there's nothing wrong with doing philosophy I didn't say there was. There's nothing wrong with knitting either. That doesn't mean that there ought to be knitting departments in universities.
    - knightoffaith 2y ago
      I think GP's point was specifically about science answering the questions like "why is there something rather than nothing?"; relativity and QFT don't say anything about this question. (Though lacking falsifiability isn't necessarily such a bad thing even for scientific theories anyway.)
      - lisper 2y ago
        > relativity and QFT don't say anything about this question. Of course they do, at least QFT does: the reason there is something rather than nothing is that "nothing" is unstable. (And note that "something" and "nothing" in that sentence are terms of art with more precise meanings than the colloquial ones.)
        knightoffaith 2y ago
        I think the spirit of the question is why anything---atoms, consciousnesses, laws of nature, quantum fields, etc.---exists, instead of nothing at all---no atoms, consciousnesses, laws of nature, fields, etc. QFT doesn't answer this question, does it?
        lisper 2y ago
        Yes, it answers these questions for all of those things except quantum fields. Why those fields exist we do not yet know, and may never know. But reducing the question to a single thing with an unknown origin rather than many things with (allegedly) unknown origins is still progress, particularly since that last remaining "thing" is not actually a thing that exists. And if you want to go down that rabbit hole, you should read this first: https://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.h...
        knightoffaith 2y ago
        How does it answer why consciousness or laws of nature exist? I included atoms as only one of the items on the list for a reason. Not to say science isn't useful or that it hasn't made progress in explaining things. But the line of thought that this question is related to is, loosely, whether there need be any ultimate, necessary explanation to things and what kind of explanation that would be, or whether explanations bottom out at brute, contingent facts. This kind of topic, regardless of whether your answer is a necessary existence or brute fact, doesn't seem to be scientific---or would you disagree?
- mcguire 2y ago
  What should I do? (Not "what can I do?")
  - lisper 2y ago
    Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation Though you don't actually have to get too deep into the weeds to answer that question: what you should do is whatever maximizes your odds of achieving your goals. The harder question is: what goals should you choose?

I think his point is that these are important questions which science can't speak to.

lisper 3y ago

How do you know it can't? What makes you think that these questions are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry?

andybak 3y ago
If science is tackling these questions then it's most likely doing so by making non-falsifiable claims. And at that point it's doing philosophy rather than science. And if you want to disagree with the definition of science that I'm using here then that's OK. But at that point, you're also doing philosophy. And all of this is fine because there's nothing wrong with doing philosophy. It's not just a word for "the stuff I don't like".
- lisper 2y ago
  > If science is tackling these questions then it's most likely doing so by making non-falsifiable claims. Nonsense. General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory make plenty of falsifiable claims. So do current cosmological theories. Not only do they make falsifiable claims, many of their claims are in the process of being falsified right now by the JWST. One of the reasons it's hard for me to take philosophy seriously is that I see too many people defending it by making patently ridiculous assertions. > And if you want to disagree with the definition of science that I'm using here then that's OK. Another ridiculous assertion. You haven't given a definition of science. But it doesn't matter. Whatever your definition of science is, if it does not include GR and QFT and cosmology then it is not not worthy of serious consideration. > there's nothing wrong with doing philosophy I didn't say there was. There's nothing wrong with knitting either. That doesn't mean that there ought to be knitting departments in universities.
  - knightoffaith 2y ago
    I think GP's point was specifically about science answering the questions like "why is there something rather than nothing?"; relativity and QFT don't say anything about this question. (Though lacking falsifiability isn't necessarily such a bad thing even for scientific theories anyway.)
    - lisper 2y ago
      > relativity and QFT don't say anything about this question. Of course they do, at least QFT does: the reason there is something rather than nothing is that "nothing" is unstable. (And note that "something" and "nothing" in that sentence are terms of art with more precise meanings than the colloquial ones.)
      - knightoffaith 2y ago
        I think the spirit of the question is why anything---atoms, consciousnesses, laws of nature, quantum fields, etc.---exists, instead of nothing at all---no atoms, consciousnesses, laws of nature, fields, etc. QFT doesn't answer this question, does it?
        lisper 2y ago
        Yes, it answers these questions for all of those things except quantum fields. Why those fields exist we do not yet know, and may never know. But reducing the question to a single thing with an unknown origin rather than many things with (allegedly) unknown origins is still progress, particularly since that last remaining "thing" is not actually a thing that exists. And if you want to go down that rabbit hole, you should read this first: https://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.h...
        knightoffaith 2y ago
        How does it answer why consciousness or laws of nature exist? I included atoms as only one of the items on the list for a reason. Not to say science isn't useful or that it hasn't made progress in explaining things. But the line of thought that this question is related to is, loosely, whether there need be any ultimate, necessary explanation to things and what kind of explanation that would be, or whether explanations bottom out at brute, contingent facts. This kind of topic, regardless of whether your answer is a necessary existence or brute fact, doesn't seem to be scientific---or would you disagree?
mcguire 2y ago
What should I do? (Not "what can I do?")
- lisper 2y ago
  Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation Though you don't actually have to get too deep into the weeds to answer that question: what you should do is whatever maximizes your odds of achieving your goals. The harder question is: what goals should you choose?