If Not Science...

[Nakosis]

That would depend what the question was.
Science can only answer certain questions.

What about the rest?
Where do the answers lie?

 

[questfortruth]

Yes, God rests at 7th day, 6=2*3: Holy Trinity, and the Godman.

Why 42 is answer to life and everything

 

[RestlessSoul]

What is the correct answer to that question and how did you arrive at it?

Both equally brilliant in my opinion, which I arrived at through a completely subjective assessment of their artistic merits. In other words, I trusted my senses, and my intuitive response to what I was hearing.

Their respective influence on subsequent generations of musicians might also be a factor in assigning value to their achievements. No opinions in respect of their comparative artistic merits are falsifiable

 

[questfortruth]

What about the rest?
Where do the answers lie?

42. Another video:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question asked if there was a better way. Would you say the way you describe above is the optimal way to answer the question.

If you ask a third person if he likes pizza and he says "yes", he may be lying.
How would you know? Certain scientific tests could tell you that.
So in that case, I'ld say that science would give you more accurate, or rather more trustworthy, answers.

Do you need to place yourself under observation or analysis by another to determine if you like blue, pizza, or are sleepy?

I wasn't talking about myself. I was talking about a third person.

How would I get the most accurate / trustworthy answers?
By just believing what that third person tells me?
Or by testing it?

The other day my son told me he likes soup. But when I see him drink soup, his face cringes as if he just swallowed a spider. So something doesn't add up there.
His word vs actual results of a test.


But no, I would not require any science or tests to determine for myself what I do or don't like.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Science would be the first to point out that questions of æsthetics, value, purpose, &c are not within its magisterium.

Science generally stays on its side of the street. Religion, on the other hand, is constantly trespassing into science's territory; making unevidenced statements about mechanisms and physics.

Science has given us the iPhone and the H-bomb. It has enabled us to manipulate and dominate nature to such an extent that many of us live our lives almost entirely alienated from the natural processes of the world of which we are part. It has enabled us to extend the lifespan of the rich and privileged, but this has not been without cost. In the light of these observations, I think it’s perfectly right to assert that science has not only strayed from it’s side of the street, it’s completely dominated every nook and cranny, every avenue and alleyway of human experience.

 

[PureX]

S

Science never claimed to answer questions outside its purview. Purpose, value, morality, &c are not within its purview.

No, but the scientism crowd does. They think science is the answer to everything. And that all observed experience and reason is "science".

 

[PureX]

Yes, perhaps I asked that made it difficult to object to but I was hoping to avoid the normal canned responses that have been heard 100s of times.

Still I was thinking some creative thinking might trip me up especially with all intelligent folks here.

Then I will answer your question. Intuition is an excellent method of discovery in relation to the unknown. (As opposed to science.)

 

[PureX]

I don't find a semantic debate over the meaning of the word "science" to be productive.

For chemistry, we have the science of chemistry and chemical engineering, the application of chemistry. For medicine, psychology and sociology we have only one umbrella word covering both the science and the application aspects. There is valid scientific research being done in medicine, psychology and sociology.

The application of information obtained from science is not science.

 

[PureX]

Science did not create your iPhone. It only enabled commercial businesses to create it.

Science does not heal people in hospitals, it only enables the medical professionals to do so.

We need to understand this.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you ask a third person if he likes pizza and he says "yes", he may be lying.
How would you know? Certain scientific tests could tell you that.
So in that case, I'ld say that science would give you more accurate, or rather more trustworthy, answers.



I wasn't talking about myself. I was talking about a third person.

How would I get the most accurate / trustworthy answers?
By just believing what that third person tells me?
Or by testing it?

The other day my son told me he likes soup. But when I see him drink soup, his face cringes as if he just swallowed a spider. So something doesn't add up there.
His word vs actual results of a test.


But no, I would not require any science or tests to determine for myself what I do or don't like.

This is a textbook example of what has been called analysis to paralysis. While you’re busy overthinking everything, and waiting to assess the results of a full range of clinical trials, the waiter would like to take your order.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is a textbook example of what has been called analysis to paralysis. While you’re busy overthinking everything, and waiting to assess the results of a full range of clinical trials, the waiter would like to take your order.

Don't be ridiculous.

I don't actually engage in such things. When somebody tells me they like pizza, I just accept it.
I was just replying to the idea that science can't be used to assess such things.

Obviously, it can.

 

[Nakosis]

Both equally brilliant in my opinion, which I arrived at through a completely subjective assessment of their artistic merits. In other words, I trusted my senses, and my intuitive response to what I was hearing.

Their respective influence on subsequent generations of musicians might also be a factor in assigning value to their achievements. No opinions in respect of their comparative artistic merits are falsifiable

So not really a question in need of an answer for you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So not really a question in need of an answer for you.

I suppose not. But then, not all questions have answers, do they?

 

[Augustus]

Testing your beliefs/truths by every means you can conceive of until you've exhausted your creative process.

The finance examples I gave probably wouldn't meet these criteria, I'm not even sure most formal science meets these criteria.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What about the rest?
Where do the answers lie?

What about the rest?
Where do the answers lie?

Again it depends on the question... Some can be answered with logic and some take Faith.

 

[Nakosis]

The finance examples I gave probably wouldn't meet these criteria, I'm not even sure most formal science meets these criteria.

Yeah, I think that is accepting what other people tell you on faith.

I've been one of those people who others accepted answers from on faith. Not the smartest way to go about it imo, but I understand the convenience of it.

 

[Nakosis]

Again it depends on the question... Some can be answered with logic and some take Faith.

Logic without science has no guaranteed grounding in reality. Faith, I'm not a big fan of.

 

[Secret Chief]

If you ask a third person if he likes pizza and he says "yes", he may be lying.
How would you know? Certain scientific tests could tell you that.

Can they? Which ones?
I'm hoping you're not thinking of the polygraph? Widely used in the US, considered unreliable in Europe.

- Polygraph - Wikipedia

 

[Secret Chief]

Don't be ridiculous.

I don't actually engage in such things. When somebody tells me they like pizza, I just accept it.
I was just replying to the idea that science can't be used to assess such things.

Obviously, it can.

Fair enough, but reading this thread it seems to be the general idea put forward is basically that science is the best method for every situation. Clearly (to me and others) it isn't.