If science can't explain it,,,,

[ChristineM]

It's what some have told me.

Of course, it all makes sense now

 

[Heyo]

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.

As I said in #28, science can explain things (and fields). A god is not a thing, at least not those most people believe in. If it were a thing, it would have measurable properties and science could research it.
The only measurable thing about gods is the belief in them - and that is investigated by psychology and anthropology (not exactly hard sciences, more like philosophies trying to be sciences). It was even investigated by neuroscience and a few years ago some scientists thought they had found the region in the brain that is responsible for god belief but that turned out to be a jump to a false conclusion.
So, yes, scientists have an open mind about god.

 

[The Hammer]

Which does not mean there is no magic.

Agreed

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which does not mean there is no magic.

No, that's precisely what it means.

"Magic" (like "supernatural") is a term we use to describe two types of things:

- things that are real but not understood well. Once we understand them better, we won't consider them "magic."

- things that aren't real but haven't been absolutely proven not to be real. Once we confirm that these things aren't real, we won't consider them "magic" either.

There is no "real magic" in either category.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

I'm not sure how much we have advanced beyond the understanding of our earliest ancestors.

A lot.

Yes, we are still instinctual and emotional animals, but our understanding of ourselves and the cosmos has increased dramatically.

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.

I am not familiar with the details of pre-European Australian Aboriginal culture. I think you are implying that this culture was in equilibrium with nature and to your mind, in a preferred way. I will venture to guess that most of what shaped and preserved that equilibrium was isolation and small population size.

As for this culture being disrupted, that event was inevitable. The only constant in life, and the cosmos, is change. Theirs was not the first to be disrupted. It is a pattern repeated throughout recorded history.

I am curious if it is your position that it would have been ideal if some sort of “Prime Directive” had been in place whereby the peoples of Australia remained isolated and untouched from the rest of the world. How long should such isolation be maintained? To what purpose? I am not advocating the taking of their land mind you, simply the issue of exposure to another culture with an increased understanding of how the world works, including technology and medicine. Should a child born into an Aboriginal culture be made to stay unaware of what others are learning and sharing about the world?

Just interested in what your position might be.

 

[syo]

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

No.

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

Agreed.
Science merely documents (or studies if you prefer) phenomenon.
Hence my disagreement with the OP

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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 could mean, science YET, can't explain it.

 

[danieldemol]

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?

Are you suggesting that indigenous Australians never fought tribal conflicts?
In my opinion.

 

[HonestJoe]

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?

I think you're missing a key distinction between whether a phenomena occurs and whether we are able to understand why it occurs (or appears to).

Scientific method is used to address the second question. If we're unable to reach a conclusion (or most likely answer), the cause of the phenomena is unknown. Someone asserting an explanation they just believe or want to be true doesn't change that.

You can't state that gods, miracles or magic are the reason for some phenomena unless you're first able to establish that any such things exist in the first place, determining a well defined, internally consistent hypothesis with a plurality of evidence to support it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

I'll add my two cents and say things that ' known ' science can't yet explain.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

It's rather simple. It doesn't mean science can't or won't be able to explain it down the road, it means like it says..vIf science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?"

Meaning "If science can't yet explain it, that means science can't explain it."

Why some seem to having taken it as "science never will" is beyond me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's rather simple. It doesn't mean science can't or won't be able to explain it down the road, it means like it says..vIf science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?"

Meaning "If science can't yet explain it, that means science can't explain it."

Why some seem to having taken it as "science never will" is beyond me.

First oof all we can answer is from what we know right now. It may be different in the future. But right now not being able to explain something does not make it unreal. Though that does not mean that the things we cannot explain are real. Time and time again we discover that those things are not real, but that does not justify the assumption that they aren't real.

In other words, be careful when you assume that something is real or not. You have a healthy chance of being wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

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

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

It's rather simple. It doesn't mean science can't or won't be able to explain it down the road, it means like it says..If science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?" Nope!

Meaning "If science can't yet explain it, that means science can't explain it."

Key word is yet

Why some seem to take it as "science never will" is beyond me.

 

[We Never Know]

First oof all we can answer is from what we know right now. It may be different in the future. But right now not being able to explain something does not make it unreal. Though that does not mean that the things we cannot explain are real. Time and time again we discover that those things are not real, but that does not justify the assumption that they aren't real.

In other words, be careful when you assume that something is real or not. You have a healthy chance of being wrong.

Look at it kinda like this....
If you can't yet speak french, you can't speak french. That doesn't mean you never will. It means you can't speak french yet.

 

[We Never Know]

I think you're missing a key distinction between whether a phenomena occurs and whether we are able to understand why it occurs (or appears to).

Scientific method is used to address the second question. If we're unable to reach a conclusion (or most likely answer), the cause of the phenomena is unknown. Someone asserting an explanation they just believe or want to be true doesn't change that.

You can't state that gods, miracles or magic are the reason for some phenomena unless you're first able to establish that any such things exist in the first place, determining a well defined, internally consistent hypothesis with a plurality of evidence to support it.

I am not stating anything except "If science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?"

Some want to throw in "yet".
So lets use "yet"....

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

It doesn't mean science never will explain it. It means at current science can't explain it.

 

[Heyo]

I am not stating anything except "If science can't explain it, does it mean it isn't real, didn't happen, or isn't possible?"

Some want to throw in "yet".
So lets use "yet"....

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

It doesn't mean science never will explain it. It means at current science can't explain it.

I explained in #12 that "can't" is ambiguous. Grammatically you are right that "can't" implies "can't yet" but not everyone is that apt at reading comprehension and may think of "can't" as "can never".
So, adding "yet" doesn't make the sentence false but adds clarity.

 

[We Never Know]

I explained in #12 that "can't" is ambiguous. Grammatically you are right that "can't" implies "can't yet" but not everyone is that apt at reading comprehension and may think of "can't" as "can never".
So, adding "yet" doesn't make the sentence false but adds clarity.

Look at it kinda like this....
If you can't speak french, you can't speak french. That doesn't mean you never will. It simply means you can't speak french.

 

[Heyo]

Look at it kinda like this....
If you can't speak french, you can't speak french. That doesn't mean you never will. It simply means you can't speak french.

Look at it kinda like this ...
If you can't, with only a strait ruler and compass, transform a circle into a square of equal size, you can't square a circle. That does mean you never will. It simply means it's impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

strait ruler and compass

So the ruler needs to be wet?