Which camp do you fall in?

[HonestJoe]

Again, the problem is that you don't actually know any of that. Nor do we know if those statements even coherently apply to the things you're talking about (what would some immaterial, timeless omnigod need science for? If there is some plane of existence beyond spacetime, how would science even begin to assess that?).

You don't know that they can't. I'm suggesting that anything that could be reasonably considered sentient would, by definition, have the ability to somehow sense aspects of it's environment and reach conclusions on the basis of that - that is the fundamental core of the scientific process. Whether they'd "need" or "want" to is irrelevant, the point is that they would be potentially capable of it. Science would not be the limitation, only the desire or ability of particular beings to apply it (just like for us).

I understand you believe that. But you can't demonstrate it scientifically.

I'm not trying to, I'm demonstrating it logically. Based on the definition of the scientific process at it' core, there is absolutely no logical reason to declare that there is any aspect of reality that it would be fundamentally impossible to have science to be applied to. All it would require is something capable of applying it, and if you can conceive of any hypothetical aspect of reality, you can conceive of something capable of observing it.

Nothing is a 100% certainty, and I'm not claiming anything I'm saying here is, but I am making a logical argument to support what I think is the most likely truth. You can't counter that by simply declaring "you don't know".

 

[Heyo]

The pythagorean theorem counts as metaphysics according to certain strict definitions of the term. You can't use scientific instruments of the scientific method to detect the physical presence of the pythagorean theorem "out there" in the universe. But it is arguably very real.

And I would argue that it isn't.
But except for this detail, I agree with you.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Science will explain everything one day, but in my opinion a lot of life is just random entropy. Some questions in life just don’t have an exact answer and while hindsight is clear nobody knows the exact future. If I put a Spotify playlist on shuffle I can’t tell you what’s going to play next, for example. A lot of life’s questions are like that. Science can tell us what’s in the playlist but can’t tell us the order when it’s placed in shuffle. That’s when people need some amount of intuition.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It can. Science can study any qualitative thing about the senses in a quantitative manner.

I personally think that it cannot and does not explore a senses' qualitative essence.

So, to you, neuroscientist Mary will gain new knowledge outside of the black and white world?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

I believe faith should be backed up with the scientific method. You need to make sure that you are believing something real.

 

[Left Coast]

You don't know that they can't.

This is the same kind of argument I hear from fundamentalist believers all the time. "Prove God DOESN'T exist!"

No. Just because I can't prove something can't be, doesnt mean that therefore it can. The answer in such a case is, we don’t know.

I'm suggesting that anything that could be reasonably considered sentient would, by definition, have the ability to somehow sense aspects of it's environment and reach conclusions on the basis of that - that is the fundamental core of the scientific process.

That's quite a stretch. Science, as we have developed it, is a system of using our physical senses to detect phenomena around us and analyze it. It depends, by definition, on the ability to physically sense things. To say that some totally non-spatial, non-temporal "sense of things in an environment" (a sentence that doesn't even coherently apply outside of spacetime), is some kind of "science," even though it's not at all like ours, doesn't work. We have no idea how perception works outside of our own experience within spacetime, or if terms like "sense" even apply.

Whether they'd "need" or "want" to is irrelevant,

No, it's entirely relevant. An immaterial omniscient being who is aware of all things already doesn't "sense" things other than by some anthropomorphic analogy.

I'm not trying to, I'm demonstrating it logically.

But science requires more than logic. Lots of things sound great on paper. The point of science is to test those ideas with observations. If you have nothing to observe, you're not engaging in science. So you're asserting a self-defeating proposition. This is the basic problem of scientism.

Aside from which, we already know, and philosophers of science acknowledge, that there are areas of our experience to which science simply does not apply.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Based on the definition of the scientific process at it' core, there is absolutely no logical reason to declare that there is any aspect of reality that it would be fundamentally impossible to have science to be applied to.

See above.

Nothing is a 100% certainty, and I'm not claiming anything I'm saying here is, but I am making a logical argument to support what I think is the most likely truth. You can't counter that by simply declaring "you don't know".

But I can, though.

 

[HonestJoe]

This is the same kind of argument I hear from fundamentalist believers all the time. "Prove God DOESN'T exist!"

No. Just because I can't prove something can't be, doesnt mean that therefore it can. The answer in such a case is, we don’t know.

I'm not asking you to prove anything though, only to present logical arguments for your position (which you are doing). As I said, I agree that we can't know anything for certain, but we can still reach rational conclusions on what is most likely to be true.

That's quite a stretch. Science, as we have developed it, is a system of using our physical senses to detect phenomena around us and analyze it. It depends, by definition, on the ability to physically sense things. To say that some totally non-spatial, non-temporal "sense of things in an environment" (a sentence that doesn't even coherently apply outside of spacetime), is some kind of "science," even though it's not at all like ours, doesn't work. We have no idea how perception works outside of our own experience within spacetime, or if terms like "sense" even apply.

As you say though, "science as we have developed it". How we can apply scientific method isn't the only way in which it could be used. Anything with the ability to consciously perceive things could apply science to those things, even if the way in which they perceive them is entirely beyond our understanding.

No, it's entirely relevant. An immaterial omniscient being who is aware of all things already doesn't "sense" things other than by some anthropomorphic analogy.

A rock can't use science either. That still isn't a limitation of what science could be applied to though.

But science requires more than logic.

We're not applying science here though, we're just talking about science. That is why it is a matter of abstract logic rather than practical application.

Aside from which, we already know, and philosophers of science acknowledge, that there are areas of our experience to which science simply does not apply.

Most of the examples in that link aren't defining areas of experience though, they're about what we do about the answers science gives us.

The only one I fundamentally disagree with is the common assertion that science can't be applied to the supernatural, which is only because "the supernatural" is specifically defined as "that which science can't be applied to". It's a circular argument and directly contradicted by countless myths and stories about various gods essentially applying scientific method themselves (in the same day-to-day way we all do).

That is, of course, where a lot of this debate comes from, with the historical theistic dominance of society trying to hang on in the face of an ever increasing knowledge and understanding of the world contradicting their beliefs. Establishing the concept of an area science can't (and isn't permitted to) enter maintains their authority and power, but there remains zero logical reason why the hard-lined distinction between natural and supernatural even needs to be made.

But I can, though.

You can obviously say it but it doesn't counter my position because I'm not claiming to know. I am presenting what I feel is logically most likely.

 

[Left Coast]

As you say though, "science as we have developed it". How we can apply scientific method isn't the only way in which it could be used.

You're speaking as though science is some external thing independent from our minds. Science is a human invention. We developed it. We designed and curated its methods. It's not "out there," somewhere, waiting to be picked up by someone else like a rock on a distant comet. It's a set of techniques that are entirely ours. And again, it only applies to things that are physical/natural and can be perceived with our five senses, by definition.

Anything with the ability to consciously perceive things could apply science to those things, even if the way in which they perceive them is entirely beyond our understanding.

You're essentially redefining science to make your position unfalsifiable here.

A rock can't use science either. That still isn't a limitation of what science could be applied to though.

I'm not talking about rocks. I'm talking about non-physical things that may or may not exist beyond our perception. Science simply cannot tell us anything about them, if they exist.

We're not applying science here though, we're just talking about science. That is why it is a matter of abstract logic rather than practical application.

But you're making an assertion about the use of science outside your head. To do that, scientifically, you need more than logic.

Most of the examples in that link aren't defining areas of experience though, they're about what we do about the answers science gives us.

Art/beauty isn't an area of experience?

The only one I fundamentally disagree with is the common assertion that science can't be applied to the supernatural, which is only because "the supernatural" is specifically defined as "that which science can't be applied to". It's a circular argument and directly contradicted by countless myths and stories about various gods essentially applying scientific method themselves (in the same day-to-day way we all do).

In general, the supernatural is defined as that which is beyond nature. Science is not designed to assess anything beyond the natural world. It has no capacity to do so. If supernatural entities allegedly interact with the physical/natural world, yes, those phenomena could be analyzed scientifically. But the conclusion would simply be that if there is a supernatural component to them, we have no access to it.

That is, of course, where a lot of this debate comes from, with the historical theistic dominance of society trying to hang on in the face of an ever increasing knowledge and understanding of the world contradicting their beliefs. Establishing the concept of an area science can't (and isn't permitted to) enter maintains their authority and power, but there remains zero logical reason why the hard-lined distinction between natural and supernatural even needs to be made.

I just made it. If you can't perceive something with your five senses, you can't assess it scientifically.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

I'm absolutely bananas for science. But there is a limit to what science can explore. For example, science tells us nothing about what is moral. So yes, there are some things of value that we explore outside of science.

 

[King Phenomenon]

I'm absolutely bananas for science. But there is a limit to what science can explore. For example, science tells us nothing about what is moral. So yes, there are some things of value that we explore outside of science.

Just moral? I believe it can tell us more.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just moral? I believe it can tell us more.

I think that the Creator cares about how we treat each other. Thus, the meditation on ethics and study of moral texts is a way to draw closer to our Creator.

 

[HonestJoe]

You're speaking as though science is some external thing independent from our minds. Science is a human invention.

We built it upon the underlying principles though, and there is no reason that some other sentient beings couldn't develop a similar concept based on the same principles, in any time or place.

You're essentially redefining science to make your position unfalsifiable here.

Not at all. I'm recognising the concept and applying logic to it. You're the one defining science as having some kind of fundamental limitation to it's scope (such as not applying to "the supernatural"), despite being unable to support that assertion based on your own definition.

I'm not talking about rocks. I'm talking about non-physical things that may or may not exist beyond our perception. Science simply cannot tell us anything about them, if they exist.

It can't tell us, it could be able to tell them, as long as they exist within their own perception.

But you're making an assertion about the use of science outside your head. To do that, scientifically, you need more than logic.

Science can definitely be used outside of my head. It can be used inside your head too for example. If there is some other kind of sentient being out there with the ability to perceive anything and the intelligence to reach conclusions about it, it's version of science could potentially be used inside it's equivalent of a head.

Art/beauty isn't an area of experience?

Arguably not, and ironically that is where something is only happening in someone's head (or non-human equivalent). Art and beauty only really exist as out subjective perceptions. A painting only exists as layers of coloured pigment on a canvas reflecting wavelengths of ambient light. It only becomes art if there is someone who can perceive it as such.

In general, the supernatural is defined as that which is beyond nature. Science is not designed to assess anything beyond the natural world.

Yes, as I said, "supernatural" is essentially defined as "beyond the scope of science". The problem is that nobody has explained logically exactly how "the supernatural" is beyond science or demonstrated that any such thing can or does actually exist (by design of course, in IMO).

I just made it. If you can't perceive something with your five senses, you can't assess it scientifically.

Well, anything we can perceive - that goes beyond the core five senses, directly, by inference or via technology. If we developed further senses though, we'd be able to apply science to them and if other animals which have additional senses developed a similar level of creative intelligence, they'd be able to apply science to them.

Yet again, any limitations are based on the those of the individual applying science, not science as a concept itself. A blind man can't (directly) apply science to things based on vision but that doesn't prevent a sighted person from doing so. If the entire human population went blind somehow, that wouldn't suddenly make it impossible to apply science to visual phenomena, it would just mean all the blind humans would no longer be able to do so.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You're the one defining science as having some kind of fundamental limitation to it's scope (such as not applying to "the supernatural"),

Science can ONLY explore those things which can be sensed and measured. IOW the natural world. It cannot explore things like heavenly beings or multiple universes.

 

[Left Coast]

We built it upon the underlying principles though, and there is no reason that some other sentient beings couldn't develop a similar concept based on the same principles, in any time or place.

"In any time or place." Exactly. If we're dealing with some entity outside of spacetime, we're not dealing with times or spaces. Thank you.

Not at all. I'm recognising the concept and applying logic to it. You're the one defining science as having some kind of fundamental limitation to it's scope (such as not applying to "the supernatural"), despite being unable to support that assertion based on your own definition.

I've supported it repeatedly, though. Ironically, you're redefining science as essentially limitless in application, which no serious philosopher of science thinks.

It can't tell us, it could be able to tell them, as long as they exist within their own perception.

You don't know that they perceive at all, though.

Science can definitely be used outside of my head. It can be used inside your head too for example. If there is some other kind of sentient being out there with the ability to perceive anything and the intelligence to reach conclusions about it, it's version of science could potentially be used inside it's equivalent of a head.

My point seems to have been lost. You're literally defending a self-defeating proposition. Not sure how many more ways I can explain it to you.

Arguably not, and ironically that is where something is only happening in someone's head (or non-human equivalent). Art and beauty only really exist as out subjective perceptions.

Subjective perceptions aren't real?

A painting only exists as layers of coloured pigment on a canvas reflecting wavelengths of ambient light. It only becomes art if there is someone who can perceive it as such.

It requires more than brute perception, though. It requires values and standards of judgment. Again, these are not in the scope of science to determine.

Yes, as I said, "supernatural" is essentially defined as "beyond the scope of science". The problem is that nobody has explained logically exactly how "the supernatural" is beyond science or demonstrated that any such thing can or does actually exist (by design of course, in IMO).

I have, though. The supernatural is outside of nature, ie non-physical, not perceptible with our senses. Ergo science has no ability to tell us about it. I've now explained this, logically, multiple times. The reader can judge if I've done a sufficient job, but let it not be said that I haven't explained it. I have.

Well, anything we can perceive - that goes beyond the core five senses, directly, by inference or via technology. If we developed further senses though, we'd be able to apply science to them and if other animals which have additional senses developed a similar level of creative intelligence, they'd be able to apply science to them.

Any phenomena we pick up indirectly or by technology is still ultimately only perceived by us through our physical senses.

When we develop new senses, let me know!

Yet again, any limitations are based on the those of the individual applying science, not science as a concept itself. A blind man can't (directly) apply science to things based on vision but that doesn't prevent a sighted person from doing so. If the entire human population went blind somehow, that wouldn't suddenly make it impossible to apply science to visual phenomena, it would just mean all the blind humans would no longer be able to do so.

Reread the highlighted portion of what you just said. If we can't do something...by definition it is impossible for us. It is impossible for a blind person (assuming complete blindness) to use light or visual stimuli to inform themselves about the world.

What you're essentially saying is that there must be some other senses besides the ones we know of that could somehow detect things outside spacetime. But you have zero evidence for such a thing. It's just a bald assertion in the dark.

 

[HonestJoe]

"In any time or place." Exactly. If we're dealing with some entity outside of spacetime, we're not dealing with times or spaces. Thank you.

That was obviously a rhetorical phrase not meant to be taken so literally. We don't know if it is even possible for anything to exist "outside spacetime" but if something does, we don't know how such a things perceptions might work and thus whether they could apply sometime akin to scientific method. You certainly can't declare that it is impossible.

You don't know that they perceive at all, though.

We're talking about something entirely hypothetical. My point is that if such and thing existed and if it had the ability to perceive, there is no logical reason to assume it would be incapable of applying scientific method to those perceptions.

Subjective perceptions aren't real?

They're as "real" as anything is but they're still subjective. The point is that they're entirely subject to our individual minds rather than being definitive facts in reality.

I have, though. The supernatural is outside of nature, ie non-physical, not perceptible with our senses.

Not perceptible with our senses but could be perceptible with something else's senses (if only hypothetically). I'm not even sure we could propose the existence of sentient "supernatural" beings that were unable to perceive their own existence at least, since self-awareness as an aspect of sentience.

Reread the highlighted portion of what you just said. If we can't do something...by definition it is impossible for us. It is impossible for a blind person (assuming complete blindness) to use light or visual stimuli to inform themselves about the world.

It is impossible for the blind person but remains possible for the sighted person, even if that is only a hypothetical sighted person. The fundamental possibility continues to exist even if there is no being (currently) capable of doing it.

What you're essentially saying is that there must be some other senses besides the ones we know of that could somehow detect things outside spacetime.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if there were such senses, it would be possible to apply scientific methods to them. They may not actually exist and they may never exist but that is not a limitation of science. If they existed, they would be within the scope of science.

 

[Left Coast]

That was obviously a rhetorical phrase not meant to be taken so literally. We don't know if it is even possible for anything to exist "outside spacetime" but if something does, we don't know how such a things perceptions might work and thus whether they could apply sometime akin to scientific method. You certainly can't declare that it is impossible.

In other words - you don't know. Thank you. So you can't declare science able to tell us anything about it. That's been my point this whole time.

We're talking about something entirely hypothetical. My point is that if such and thing existed and if it had the ability to perceive, there is no logical reason to assume it would be incapable of applying scientific method to those perceptions.

But those are ifs that you have no ability to determine. That's my point.

They're as "real" as anything is but they're still subjective. The point is that they're entirely subject to our individual minds rather than being definitive facts in reality.

Those two sentences are contradictory.

Not perceptible with our senses but could be perceptible with something else's senses (if only hypothetically). I'm not even sure we could propose the existence of sentient "supernatural" beings that were unable to perceive their own existence at least, since self-awareness as an aspect of sentience.

It is impossible for the blind person but remains possible for the sighted person, even if that is only a hypothetical sighted person. The fundamental possibility continues to exist even if there is no being (currently) capable of doing it.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if there were such senses, it would be possible to apply scientific methods to them. They may not actually exist and they may never exist but that is not a limitation of science. If they existed, they would be within the scope of science.

I'm repeating myself.

My whole point that we simply don't know if any of that is actually the case. And science cannot help us get an answer to the question, because such things are beyond our perception. If they're non-physical, they are literally by definition beyond physical perception. Which is the purview of science.

I've sufficiently beaten this dead horse for you.

 

[Alien826]

It can. Science can study any qualitative thing about the senses in a quantitative manner.

I personally think that it cannot and does not explore a senses' qualitative essence.

"Sense's" not "senses'".

 

[Valjean]

I believe faith should be backed up with the scientific method. You need to make sure that you are believing something real.

I agree. We must eliminate faith with scientific backup, and transform it into knowledge.

 

[Valjean]

Just moral? I believe it can tell us more.

Huh?

 

[HonestJoe]

My whole point that we simply don't know if any of that is actually the case. And science cannot help us get an answer to the question, because such things are beyond our perception. If they're non-physical, they are literally by definition beyond physical perception. Which is the purview of science.

You can't say "we don't know" the answer and then give a definitive answer (especially when you're using that answer to support the fact we don't know!). I agree we don't know but, in part because of that, there is no logical reason to assume that scientific principles definitely can't be applied to something non-physical in some way.

Science is not limited to physical perception, it is humans that are limited to the physical. If something existed that had some non-physical form of perception (even if such a thing is beyond our understanding), they could be able to apply something akin to scientific method to their perceptions.

They might even have debates about whether science is limited to the non-physical or whether some hypothetical being with physical perceptions could use scientific method too.