Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A scientist must go where the evidence leads

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#31

Post by CharlesColeman »

kiba wrote: post #28
ta1234567890 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good point. Adding to it, there are things in life which are ineffable. This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. Thus, these things will forever evade scientific scrutiny as science cannot deal with the ineffable. Despite the above, we (and science) are continuously trying to reduce the immensity, inconmensurability and ineffability of reality into something that can easily…

Adding to it, there are things in life which are ineffable. This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. Thus, these things will forever evade scientific scrutiny as science cannot deal with the ineffable. What are ineffable things in life?

Qualia are one class.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#32

Post by kiba »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #31
kiba wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to it, there are things in life which are ineffable. This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. Thus, these things will forever evade scientific scrutiny as science cannot deal with the ineffable. What are ineffable things in life?

Qualia are one class.

I am content with trying to grasp with it and never quite coming to an answer.

These stuff can be answered with "I don't know" or "I don't know, but this is my best guess".

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#33

Post by wellpast »

kiba wrote: post #26
simonsarris wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree very much. It's a terrible state to be in. I think religion's job is not to explain things, as the very non-religious (and even now, most religious!) seem to think, but to leave you in wonder, to fill you with the mystery of the world. Demanding such an explanation from your religion seems like asking for the wrong thing. Like asking your cat to sub in as a human baby. You will be disappointed, and scratched. >…

I don't see why we need to appeal to religion to have a system of morality or having a sense of wonder.

You don't have to appeal to religion -- in the word.

But you will be appealing to something that isn't Scientific rhetoric, call it what you will.

You can just use the word Wonder if you like.

I only object when one approaches someone else (like a religious person) and accuses them of being "wrong" and "un-scientific".

You are both doing the same thing. One is staring at Wonder. The other is staring at God.

Or call me wrong and devise whatever vocbulary you want that is better than this^^

But god-forbid anyone think they're on higher ground just because they have a different word for it.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#34

Post by ta1234567890 »

kiba wrote: post #28
ta1234567890 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good point. Adding to it, there are things in life which are ineffable. This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. Thus, these things will forever evade scientific scrutiny as science cannot deal with the ineffable. Despite the above, we (and science) are continuously trying to reduce the immensity, inconmensurability and ineffability of reality into something that can easily…

Adding to it, there are things in life which are ineffable. This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. Thus, these things will forever evade scientific scrutiny as science cannot deal with the ineffable. What are ineffable things in life?

Some examples (for me): Love, death, having a kid.

One way of understanding how we struggle with the ineffable:

When parents raise a kid they usually want the kid to learn without suffering, without making the mistakes they made. However that's an impossible task. The kid will only truly understand what getting burnt (literally) means, when they get burnt. And no amount of explaining from the parents will ever convey the experience/meaning of getting burnt to their kid. Same for falling to the floor or falling in love. You can only truly "know" those things by experiencing them.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#35

Post by dragonwriter »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #31
kiba wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to it, there are things in life which are ineffable. This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. Thus, these things will forever evade scientific scrutiny as science cannot deal with the ineffable. What are ineffable things in life?

Qualia are one class.

Qualia are the only class of things which both can be experienced by an individual (and thus reasonably be said to exist, at least by that individual) but also be ineffable.

If there are other ineffable things which exist, we cannot ever know about them.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#37

Post by wellpast »

kiba wrote: post #32
CharlesColeman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualia are one class.

I am content with trying to grasp with it and never quite coming to an answer. These stuff can be answered with "I don't know" or "I don't know, but this is my best guess".

Or you could write narratives and koans and poems that explore it and assist in exploring it to its depths.

Or -- better -- read the ancient and long-evolved, long-refined attempts at this.

Why limit exploration to the narrow (and yet highly valuable at times) domain of Science.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#38

Post by yarrel »

wellpast wrote: post #30
pvg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both got tricked into thinking that their propositions somehow exist in the same domain when they do not. This seems quite ahistorical and dismissive of a few hundred years of recent history. The domains overlap and this was a fight, both intellectual and sometimes literal that lasted centuries and for real stakes. It has now mostly settled into a sort of polite truce but calling this all a result of some sort of tri…

Take my example of the person who believes in Resurrection encountering the Scientific dissenter. Either they are having a fair debate and they are talking in the same domain or they are not. I say they are not. Yet they are still having the debate. Ergo, I say they are "tricked". What better word to use for two people fervently engaging in debate based on a senseless equivalency? I also point to history b/c it seems…

Someone has certainly been tricked in this example...

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#39

Post by kiba »

wellpast wrote: post #29
chousuke wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite sure what it is exactly that you're trying to say, so apologies if I misinterpreted it, but to me you seem to suggest that science and religion are somehow complimentary; two different ways of seeing "truth". Two different "domains" of truthiness, in essence. If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false, then yes, that's evident…

I mean this with no offense but I think you're reflecting the deficit in thinking I mention. E.g. here: > If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false, I assume you're using science's rhetoric of false here. Which is really just can it be observed using the tools & vocabulary of science. > I have serious problems with this sentiment that ther…

Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook.

When people claimed that god exists, then it is a claim that can be challenged. If someone claimed that Jesus Christ came to back to life, then it is a claim that can be challenged.

Ditto for system of morality where certain aspects can be subjected to empirical testing.

It's intellectually dishonest to say that Christians or some other religion X have no claims that could be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Post reply on HN