If science can't explain it,,,,

[We Never Know]

So the ruler needs to be wet?

Narrow and wet

 

[Luchito Prays]

You misunderstand.
200-years ago science didn't understand evolution.
100-years ago we didn't know about the big bang
Continental drift is a relatively new thing

Science is all about finding out things we don't understand.

Today is understood that evolution and big bang are not science.

 

[Luchito Prays]

People might expect too much from science, but regardless of the greatest discoveries made in the different branches of science, there are lots of things which are not well understood. Problem is that some scientists rather than saying they don't know, they just invent superfluous theories to show they do.

So, if science can't explain it is simply because doesn't know. No big deal.

 

[Altfish]

Today is understood that evolution and big bang are not science.

Oh dear!

You need to read up more

 

[Altfish]

People might expect too much from science, but regardless of the greatest discoveries made in the different branches of science, there are lots of things which are not well understood. Problem is that some scientists rather than saying they don't know, they just invent superfluous theories to show they do.

So, if science can't explain it is simply because doesn't know. No big deal.

I don't think it is the scientists inventing explanations

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think it is the scientists inventing explanations

A few are in some of the corners of theoretical physics. But most are not.

 

[HonestJoe]

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?"

I think you're still missing the distinction between something being real and something being explained.

Lets take a practical example. UFO sightings most certainly occur and so the experiences of them are definitively real, regardless of whether the cause of any given sighting is understood. Some UFO sightings are explained by physical objects - balloons, aircraft, street lights etc. Those objects exist regardless of whether they've been identified as the cause of the sighting or not. Equally, some UFO sightings are explained by other things - optical illusions, reflections or imagination. They're not (directly) related to any physical objects and so in a way could be said not to exist (certainly not as they are perceived to).

The problem with fudging this distinction is that it is used as perceived support for specific un-evidenced explanations, such as "Because we don't have an explanation for this UFO sighting, it means it could be an alien spacecraft.". While that is technically true, any given UFO sighting will have dozens of potential explanations, many of them rational and much more likely. There is no good reason to actively promote any particular explanation if there is no specific evidence to positively support it.

Ultimately, if science can't be used to give any information about the cause of something (including eliminating particular possibilities), the only honest thing we can say about it is "We don't know.". Anything else requires some level of empty speculation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you're still missing the distinction between something being real and something being explained.

Lets take a practical example. UFO sightings most certainly occur and so the experiences of them are definitively real, regardless of whether the cause of any given sighting is understood. Some UFO sightings are explained by physical objects - balloons, aircraft, street lights etc. Those objects exist regardless of whether they've been identified as the cause of the sighting or not. Equally, some UFO sightings are explained by other things - optical illusions, reflections or imagination. They're not (directly) related to any physical objects and so in a way could be said not to exist (certainly not as they are perceived to).

The problem with fudging this distinction is that it is used as perceived support for specific un-evidenced explanations, such as "Because we don't have an explanation for this UFO sighting, it means it could be an alien spacecraft.". While that is technically true, any given UFO sighting will have dozens of potential explanations, many of them rational and much more likely. There is no good reason to actively promote any particular explanation if there is no specific evidence to positively support it.

Ultimately, if science can't be used to give any information about the cause of something (including eliminating particular possibilities), the only honest thing we can say about it is "We don't know.". Anything else requires some level of empty speculation.

There is also e.g. morality. You can explain with science that it is not objective, but you can't do morality with science, because morality is not objective.

 

[MikeF]

There is also e.g. morality. You can explain with science that it is not objective, but you can't do morality with science, because morality is not objective.

But you can scientifically understand human behavior which informs morals and ethics.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Well, this usually arises when people say that science can *never* explain or deal with the supernatural.

 

[Polymath257]

But you can scientifically understand human behavior which informs morals and ethics.

yes, science can *inform* morals by showing what is possible and what it takes to do certain things.

But science cannot determine the goals. It cannot determine what is 'good' without some assumption about 'goodness'.

The basic notion is that 'is' does not imply 'ought'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you can scientifically understand human behavior which informs morals and ethics.

Yes, you can be going objective explain how morality works as subjective human behaviour, but you can't do morality using science.

 

[HonestJoe]

There is also e.g. morality. You can explain with science that it is not objective, but you can't do morality with science, because morality is not objective.

What do you mean by doing morality though? Science isn't for doing things, it is for understanding things. What we each do in response to scientific conclusions (definitive, partial or "We don't know") is still open to personal preference, opinion and other knowledge (accurate or not).

You see that in politics all the time. For example, we can get an objective measure of the number of gun deaths but some people will take that fact as a reason to have more guns (for self defence) and others as a reason for fewer guns (for prevention). The science is objective but the opinions based upon it are subjective.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, you can be going objective explain how morality works as subjective human behaviour, but you can't do morality using science.

Out of curiosity, how exactly is morality done, in your opinion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean by doing morality though? Science isn't for doing things, it is for understanding things. What we each do in response to scientific conclusions (definitive, partial or "We don't know") is still open to personal preference, opinion and other knowledge (accurate or not).

You see that in politics all the time. For example, we can get an objective measure of the number of gun deaths but some people will take that fact as a reason to have more guns (for self defence) and others as a reason for fewer guns (for prevention). The science is objective but the opinions based upon it are subjective.

Correct, you can't explain a correct opinion using science or an incorrect opinion using science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Out of curiosity, how exactly is morality done, in your opinion?

In individual brains according to brain scans as done by science.

 

[MikeF]

Correct, you can't explain a correct opinion using science or an incorrect opinion using science.

Hmm .... Is this entirely true? If I express the opinion that the earth is flat, might science shed some light on the correctness of that opinion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm .... Is this entirely true? If I express the opinion that the earth is flat, might science shed some light on the correctness of that opinion?

That is not an opinion as an ought. That is an opinion about a fact. Do you want to debate the fact-value distinction?

 

[MikeF]

In individual brains according to brain scans as done by science.

All right then. If that's what you got.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All right then. If that's what you got.

Can you expand?