• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If science can't explain it,,,,

If science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 42 100.0%

  • Total voters
    42

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
If science can't explain it,,,,

Be it a god, a miracle, magic, something physically seen or
physically experienced, or a personal experience....

If science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?

The vote is anonymous, so vote honest :)


I realise that some may feel I too am “playing with words” now, but I’d say that I’m merely reflecting when I suggest that we first swap the word “science” with “scientists” and that we then recall what scientists do when they do research and produce knowledge. Finally, that we also acknowledge that scientists are “human beings”.

The question in your OP then becomes: If man cannot experience, study and explain it - does it not exist?

We should be able to agree on the fact that whatever does not exist, cannot be studied - ever.

But that cannot be the same as saying that what man cannot experience, does not exist, because then we are saying that only man’s experience exists. And that is not what we are saying, is it…?

Though I feel that we should be able to agree also on the fact that scientists cannot study what they cannot experience, I am reluctant to go with the belief that man (scientists) can experience all that exists.


Humbly
Hermit
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Science couldn’t explain gravity for a long time. Was gravity non existent during such ages?

There are literal entire fields of science that deal with theoretical concepts.
Like theoretical physics I’m pretty sure is a thing.
I’m no where near smart enough to know what that entails. But “theoretical” seems like it’s not all “tangible things” that are studied, so to speak

If science could explain every iota of human existence, of reality, of theoretical reality even, I don’t think it would be studied anymore as a whole. That there is more to understand is fundamental to why we carry out scientific study in the first place.


Maybe. But the explanation which science offered for gravity from the late 17th Century to the early 20th was flawed. Newton’s law of gravitation can no longer be said to explain gravity, since it has been superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

But the formula Newton devised to measure the gravitational force still serves, and is used to make calculations and predictions about orbits. He got the maths right but was wrong about the underlying ontology. So while a particular scientific theory may be supported empirically, and while it may have all sorts of practical applications in understanding, predicting and manipulating the natural world, we cannot assume that laws of science tell us facts about reality.
 
Last edited:

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Mathematics is the mother of Science. Right?
Is it real, please?

Regards

Could we at least agree that mathematics deals with abstraction whereas science attempts to study the natural world, which is concrete?

This is the major difference between the formal sciences and the natural sciences.

Personally, I hold to the idea that math is a product of our mind's cognitive apparatus and is a trustworthy tool for approximating reality, but it is not necessarily real in and of itself.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If science can't explain it,,,,

Be it a god, a miracle, magic, something physically seen or
physically experienced, or a personal experience....

If science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?

The vote is anonymous, so vote honest :)

If we observe it in some way, then it exists. Science may or may not be able to fully explain what is observed.

We can imagine what is not real, does not exist, or is impossible to exist. We must have a mechanism in which to distinguish between what is a real observation and what is imaginary. Scientific inquiry is that mechanism.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Maybe. But the explanation which science offered for gravity from the late 17th Century to the early 20th was flawed. Newton’s law of gravitation can no longer be said to explain gravity, since it has been superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

But the formula Newton devised to measure the gravitational force still serves, and is used to make calculations and predictions about orbits. He got the maths right but was wrong about the underlying ontology. So while a particular scientific theory may be supported empirically, and while it may have all sorts of practical applications in understanding, predicting and manipulating the natural world, we cannot assume that laws of science tell us facts about reality.

And yet, no matter how we may struggle to understand gravity, it is actually observed. It is a real phenomenon. It can be distinguished from that which is purely in the imagination.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Maybe. But the explanation which science offered for gravity from the late 17th Century to the early 20th was flawed. Newton’s law of gravitation can no longer be said to explain gravity, since it has been superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

But the formula Newton devised to measure the gravitational force still serves, and is used to make calculations and predictions about orbits. He got the maths right but was wrong about the underlying ontology. So while a particular scientific theory may be supported empirically, and while it may have all sorts of practical applications in understanding, predicting and manipulating the natural world, we cannot assume that laws of science tell us facts about reality.

Precisely. Technically, science gives us justified claims, not knowledge.

Knowledge might be confined to deduction, mathematics, and computational logic.

Proper application of the scientific method leads one to always doubt its conclusions, even if they are the best conclusions that can be formed with the given data.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
But the formula Newton devised to measure the gravitational force still serves, and is used to make calculations and predictions about orbits. He got the maths right but was wrong about the underlying ontology.
...
we cannot assume that laws of science tell us facts about reality.

Aren't Newton's laws still facts about gravity? Do they not approximate the mutual effect gravitational bodies have on each other within restricted parameters?

If I give you a general description about the exterior of an object, am I not relaying real information about that object? I may not be providing all possible information about the object, but that does not invalidate the description.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If science can't explain it,,,,

Be it a god, a miracle, magic, something physically seen or
physically experienced, or a personal experience....

If science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?

The vote is anonymous, so vote honest :)
If it doesnt exist or doesnt happen only
religion can explain it
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Maybe. But the explanation which science offered for gravity from the late 17th Century to the early 20th was flawed. Newton’s law of gravitation can no longer be said to explain gravity, since it has been superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

But the formula Newton devised to measure the gravitational force still serves, and is used to make calculations and predictions about orbits. He got the maths right but was wrong about the underlying ontology. So while a particular scientific theory may be supported empirically, and while it may have all sorts of practical applications in understanding, predicting and manipulating the natural world, we cannot assume that laws of science tell us facts about reality.
I agree with all of that. Except maybe the last part.

If the Newtonian laws of physics don’t tell us about reality, then why are we beholden to them in this one?

But would you agree that science (in whatever form it took) couldn’t explain gravity before that?
Did gravity not exist prior to the 1600s?

I’m simply saying that there were (and likely are) phenomenons that took science a while to completely understand them. Or explain them, rather
That doesn’t mean such phenomenons weren’t real prior to such explanations, right?

Newton didn’t invent gravity when he devised his hypothesis and theories, did he?

Granted I’m an idiot in matters pertaining to science. I’m just saying. Just because science can’t explain a phenomenon now, doesn’t mean it can’t in the future. And even if it can’t, I don’t see how it renders such a phenomenon as “fake news.”
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Lol. If science can't explain it "yet"..... That means science can't explain it.
But I like your dedication.
Your OP was rather vague.

And I have to disagree with @Heyo a bit. There may be phenomena that science cannot ever explain. But due to the nature of knowledge we will never know if a particular problem can't be solved now or if it can never be solved. One of the few assumptions of the scientific method is that any particular problem can be solved.

The drawback with not making that assumption is that the conclusion " it can't be solved" becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It is much more productive to assume that a problem can be solved.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
What you say is easy to understand and I think "We Never Know" can understand it.
What you may not understand is that if science cannot explain it yet, it means science cannot explain it, there is no scientific explanation. If you want to add "now" to the end of the sentence and suppose that science will be able to explain it sometime then that is a belief in a particular world view which says that all things are explainable by science. iows the supernatural does not exist.
Yes and no.
The reason we still have scientists is to investigate things we don't understand and better understand those things that we think we understand.
If we knew everything, we could sack all the scientists.
Science cannot investigate the supernatural.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I realise that some may feel I too am “playing with words” now, but I’d say that I’m merely reflecting when I suggest that we first swap the word “science” with “scientists” and that we then recall what scientists do when they do research and produce knowledge. Finally, that we also acknowledge that scientists are “human beings”.

The question in your OP then becomes: If man cannot experience, study and explain it - does it not exist?

We should be able to agree on the fact that whatever does not exist, cannot be studied - ever.

But that cannot be the same as saying that what man cannot experience, does not exist, because then we are saying that only man’s experience exists. And that is not what we are saying, is it…?

Though I feel that we should be able to agree also on the fact that scientists cannot study what they cannot experience, I am reluctant to go with the belief that man (scientists) can experience all that exists.


Humbly
Hermit

I think I can agree with all the sentiments you express here. What I am unsure of is how you feel the unknown is to be addressed. If we agree that human beings may never be able to experience all that exists, and that human beings cannot know of something unless it is experienced in some way, how do we treat that which is unknown? Can we simply make stuff up about the unknow to satisfy any anxiety about not knowing, or do we simply leave it as unknown?

Should we make a concerted effort to distinguish between what is a real experience and what is only imagined?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Thst is kind of embarrassing to read.

Sound like someone cannot explain science yet
It reminds me of a recurring theme in such discussions.
"Science is imperfect...riddled with errors, sometimes
has fraud, & those scientists are often absent minded
ivory tower dwellers."
Why say it?
Because religion is the alternative. The Bible has
an answer for everything, & it's never been wrong
in 2000 years.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If science can't explain it,,,,

Be it a god, a miracle, magic, something physically seen or
physically experienced, or a personal experience....

If science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?

The vote is anonymous, so vote honest :)
It doesn't mean it definitely wasn't real, but it also means:

- you have no reason to conclude that it definitely is real, and
- any purported explanation was pulled out of someone's butt.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I agree with all of that. Except maybe the last part.

If the Newtonian laws of physics don’t tell us about reality, then why are we beholden to them in this one?

But would you agree that science (in whatever form it took) couldn’t explain gravity before that?
Did gravity not exist prior to the 1600s?

I’m simply saying that there were (and likely are) phenomenons that took science a while to completely understand them. Or explain them, rather
That doesn’t mean such phenomenons weren’t real prior to such explanations, right?

Newton didn’t invent gravity when he devised his hypothesis and theories, did he?

Granted I’m an idiot in matters pertaining to science. I’m just saying. Just because science can’t explain a phenomenon now, doesn’t mean it can’t in the future. And even if it can’t, I don’t see how it renders such a phenomenon as “fake news.”


No, indeed. The effects of gravity were the same before and after Newton, just as they were the same before and after Einstein. Similarly, before and after Ptolemaeus, and before and after Copernicus, the sun rose in the east and set in the west.

Whether the sun would rise or fall at all if there were nobody around to observe it, is a question raised by the philosopher Kant, but now occupying the minds of quantum physicists.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Aren't Newton's laws still facts about gravity? Do they not approximate the mutual effect gravitational bodies have on each other within restricted parameters?

If I give you a general description about the exterior of an object, am I not relaying real information about that object? I may not be providing all possible information about the object, but that does not invalidate the description.


Yeah, Newtonian physics was empirically consistent, and still allows meaningful data to be gathered about objects and entities, and how objects respond to the forces acting on them. But they don't provide a full, or even accurate, description of the workings of the natural world. Whether science could or should be expected to do the latter, is a matter of some debate. Einstein and Stephen Hawking are two high profile physicists who thought it should. Others, like Niels Bohr for instance, thought these aspirations unrealistic or meaningless.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The thread seems to have some misunderstandings of what "science" means, so I think it's time to pull out the Novella quote:

What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?

- Dr. Steven Novella

When someone like @We Never Know says "science can't explain ____," what this means is just "when we investigate rigorously, we can't find an explanation."

Maybe this means that the thing is false, or maybe it means that some other purported explanation, even if it isn't supported well enough to rely on it, is coincidentally true. You can't tell which.

We can think of it in terms of our BS filter. What we call "science" is what it looks like when the filter is turned up to the maximum to exclude as much bull feces as possible.

When someone comes around peddling a belief that "science" doesn't support, what they're telling you is that you need to turn your BS filter down in order for their belief to get through it.

To be fair, not everything that gets caught by the BS filter is bull feces, but anything that gets caught in the BS filter is indistinguishable from bull feces using the best tools available to us... so having a belief that "science can't explain" isn't exactly a badge of honour.
 
Top