If science can't explain it,,,,

[MikeF]

The thread seems to have some misunderstandings of what "science" means, so I think it's time to pull out the Novella quote:



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.

Love this analogy.

 

[ChristineM]

The Bible has
an answer for everything, & it's never been wrong
in 2000 years.

Eh?

 

[Audie]

But is religion actually explaining it, then?

To the satisfactiin of some

 

[Audie]

Eh?

Could be sone of that sincerely insincere
sarcasm favoured by irascible groundskeepers
and divers other such swabs.

 

[MikeF]

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.

I am curious as to why humanity should not seek a full and accurate description of the workings of the natural world. Is it your preference that humanities collective understand should never have advanced beyond that of our earliest hunter/gatherer ancestors?

If not, where draw the line? Why draw the line anywhere?

 

[ChristineM]

Could be sone of that sincerely insincere
sarcasm favoured by irascible groundskeepers
and divers other such swabs.

I think you are quite probably correct.

Btw, i typed that left handed with one eye in a sling (patch), while eating a very creamy cream cake using my right hand. I hope you are proud of your sis. And now I'm going to clean up the mess ;-)

 

[shunyadragon]

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 simply means that science at present cannot explain it. If it is not supported by 'objective verifiable physical evidence' then the scientific methods cannot falsify a hypothesis.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I am curious as to why humanity should not seek a full and accurate description of the workings of the natural world. Is it your preference that humanities collective understand should never have advanced beyond that of our earliest hunter/gatherer ancestors?

If not, where draw the line? Why draw the line anywhere?

I'm not sure how much we have advanced beyond the understanding of our earliest ancestors. To illustrate that point; when the technologically advanced, scientifically literate Europeans arrived in Australia and disrupted a network of societies that had been living in harmony with nature and each other for millennia, whose understanding of the natural world do you think was most advanced, and how do you make that judgement?

It's undeniably in our nature to want answers to all the big questions. So we'll go on searching, and asking questions, and I'll applaud and follow with interest all those who do. I just don't expect the natural sciences alone to provide all the answers. That, it seems to me, would be to ask too much of any one avenue of human enquiry. It also looks a lot like the Western, modernist exceptionalism which caused our recent European ancestors to assume there was nothing they could learn about the natural world, from those aboriginals who were living much as our hunter gatherer ancestors had, when the two cultures collided.

 

[Father Heathen]

Science can explain anything and everything.

It's our limited knowledge and understanding of science that can not.

There was a time when humans couldn't explain lightening or radio waves, yet they were occuring phenomenons none the less.

There's always going to be something to learn or discover.

 

[Stevicus]

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 look at science more as a process. It's not like science is the Shell Answer Man with ready-made answers and explanations for everything.

If science can't explain something, much of it might depend on the reasons why. Observation is a key component, and if they can't see it and observe it, then they might have more questions than answers. Before microscopes and telescopes were invented, scientists were limited as to what they could actually observe.

Scientific knowledge has progressed concurrent with the invention of technologies which give them the ability to observe phenomena more closely, whether it's rockets into space to get a better view, or electron microscopes to look at another world, or undersea vessels strong enough to traverse the Marianas Trench without getting crushed.

Of course, there's still a long way to go. We still have to invent tricorders and sensor arrays and warp engines, so we'll have better tools to go where we will and observe anything of curiosity, to seek out new life and new civilizations and to boldly go where no one has gone before.

 

[Polymath257]

True or false?...

"If science can't explain it "yet"..... That means science can't explain it."

False. There have been many situations where explanations were discovered.

I would say that if science can *never* explain it, then it is meaningless.

 

[Polymath257]

So if it isnt physical or science do not have tools to mesure it, it cant be real?
Only when science can measure it, it becomes real?

No, it is real whether the explanation has been discovered *yet*.

if there is no possible explanation, ever, then it makes no sense at all.

 

[wellwisher]

There is no such thing that science can't explain - only things that science can't explain, yet.

If that is true, science needs to always have an open mind and not discount anything, until science can improve its game and explain it. This would include things like God, since God can not yet explained by science, except in a negative or dismissing way, which is not in the spirit of objective and advancing science.

Quantum physics is showing how the microscopic makeup of matter is a lot stranger than the macro size objects that we see each day, which are made of the microscopic building blocks that behave in unusual ways.

A cool affect are individual water molecule moving inside carbon; graphite, nanotubes. The water molecules move like start and stop traffic. Yet when bulk water runs through a larger hose, we don't see this affect.

This affect has led some research teams to speculate that the microtubules associated with neurons may be the source of a quantum consciousness affect. This follows from other theory, but it does not explain how this microscopic affects scales up to the macro-affect of consciousness. The scale-up typically loses its microscopic magic upon scaling. Maybe there are exceptions. It good to stay open minded and keep on speculating and trying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

False. There have been many situations where explanations were discovered.

I would say that if science can *never* explain it, then it is meaningless.

Thus you have made all of these human behaviours meaningless, as science can't explain how to do this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

BTW the word meaningless has no objective referent or positive observable sense. Nor can it be measured by any scientific instrument.
The correct sentence is "I would say that if science can *never* explain it, then it is meaningless to me based on how I think/feel and thus that it is meaningless is not science".

 

[stvdv]

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

Some things Science can never explain

But good to acknowledge this, as it keeps Scientists humble...hence open

 

[Stevicus]

So if it isnt physical or science do not have tools to mesure it, it cant be real?
Only when science can measure it, it becomes real?

If it's real, then it was always real. It doesn't "become" real even if it's something that couldn't be measured before.

It's similar with everyday events and ordinary situations. For example, if your car breaks down and stops running, you may not know what's wrong with it - and even a mechanic may not be able to tell right away. They have to look under the hood and see what's going on. Troubleshooting can be kind of tedious.

But they wouldn't typically just give up and claim that it must be "God's will" if the answer isn't immediately apparent or easy to find.

I've even known some people who believed that their car was a sentient being which intentionally decided to break down out of spite.

 

[sun rise]

There is no such thing that science can't explain - only things that science can't explain, yet.

Yes, the question was badly worded.

 

[metis]

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

As a scientist, I can positively tell you that the answer has to be "No".

 

[Revoltingest]

Eh?

It's what some have told me.

 

[icehorse]

So there are belief in science then. Its good to hear you say science holds belief too.

I would say that we all align with some philosophical axioms that are unfalsifiable. Some people believe in deities, some people believe in the process of science. Most of us believe in some variation of the golden rule.