Condescending tone, empty rhetoric, pretending to have a higher grasp than my mere mortal self, yep, I'm talking to person who believes in giant cloud people who rule over us. I'll stick to testable "models" over "zero evidence at all." Thanks.
Science provided enough answers to create the cell phone that you're displaying your ignorance through.
I'll stick to testable "models" over "zero evidence at all."
Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. Actually quote me to avoid strawman arguments.
I also like testable models. But those testable models are the hard limits of science. Science has no mechanism to provide actual answers.
These answers, if they exist at all, reside on a different level of cognition than those we can review with the scientific method.
If we are going to discuss that level, we will venture in to philosophy, theology and metaphysics. All of which were the historical precursors to what we know as science, by the way.
It is called the Hard Problem for a good reason. The big questions remain unanswered for reasons related directly to this topic. Even top neurobiologist are turning around on the reductive materialist worldview.
It is actually a really interesting subject and if you can bear to have it with me, I’ll gladly take the time.
Sorry, you're right. Your post got me thinking and it made me recall a type of person i can't stand. That wasn't explained well and it seems like I was saying you were behaving that way. Either way you slice it, my bad.
As for the topic, how about.... how plants use sunlight to create energy. That's an answer science gave us. It is one of millions I thought of. There are literally so many I don't know where to even start. How about this. You pick a topic. I will give an example of how science answered a question relating to that topic.
Appreciate the reply. However we still seem hung up on "science provides answers" fallacy. I'll do my best but this is not exactly easy to explain, nor is it even my original idea. This is a topic with a lot of history and it is probably best to start there, namely with Greek philosophy (a rather large undertaking in and of itself).
But to be specific with your examples:
how plants use sunlight to create energy. That's an answer science gave us.
Science gave us no such answer. Consider what your question even is. "How do plants convert sunlight into energy?" At no point does science produce an answer to your question. What science produces, is a series of reproducible models. We then take a look at those models, and form an interpretation. We observe a compound we call chlorophyl, and the biochemical processes related to its mechanism, and can then show a model that describes the various stages of the process.
At no point did science provide an answer. Because answers involve cognition, and interpretation, all of which reside entirely outside of the scientific mechanism.
At no point does science take the model it produced, and then derive higher meaning from it. That, is something that you do, entirely within your mind, outside of the scientific process itself.
Are you following?
You pick a topic. I will give an example of how science answered a question relating to that topic.
It would be more fair for you to pick the topic, because I am going to pick topics that science has continually failed to provide answers for, well, for millennia now.
What is the meaning of life
What is consciousness
Is the reductive materialist model an accurate representation of relality
I could go on and on, but the point should hopefully be clear. The practice of science in no way provides actual answers to questions. All science can ever hope to do is to produce a model. That model may or may not be useful, the determination of which is an entirely separate level of cognition that science itself lacks the ability to affect.
At best, science can inform the individual who seeks answers. But ultimately those answers are derived outside of science itself.
Condescending tone, empty rhetoric, pretending to have a higher grasp than my mere mortal self, yep, I'm talking to person who believes in giant cloud people who rule over us. I'll stick to testable "models" over "zero evidence at all." Thanks.
Science provided enough answers to create the cell phone that you're displaying your ignorance through.
Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. Actually quote me to avoid strawman arguments.
I also like testable models. But those testable models are the hard limits of science. Science has no mechanism to provide actual answers.
These answers, if they exist at all, reside on a different level of cognition than those we can review with the scientific method.
If we are going to discuss that level, we will venture in to philosophy, theology and metaphysics. All of which were the historical precursors to what we know as science, by the way.
It is called the Hard Problem for a good reason. The big questions remain unanswered for reasons related directly to this topic. Even top neurobiologist are turning around on the reductive materialist worldview.
It is actually a really interesting subject and if you can bear to have it with me, I’ll gladly take the time.
Sorry, you're right. Your post got me thinking and it made me recall a type of person i can't stand. That wasn't explained well and it seems like I was saying you were behaving that way. Either way you slice it, my bad.
As for the topic, how about.... how plants use sunlight to create energy. That's an answer science gave us. It is one of millions I thought of. There are literally so many I don't know where to even start. How about this. You pick a topic. I will give an example of how science answered a question relating to that topic.
Appreciate the reply. However we still seem hung up on "science provides answers" fallacy. I'll do my best but this is not exactly easy to explain, nor is it even my original idea. This is a topic with a lot of history and it is probably best to start there, namely with Greek philosophy (a rather large undertaking in and of itself).
But to be specific with your examples:
Science gave us no such answer. Consider what your question even is. "How do plants convert sunlight into energy?" At no point does science produce an answer to your question. What science produces, is a series of reproducible models. We then take a look at those models, and form an interpretation. We observe a compound we call chlorophyl, and the biochemical processes related to its mechanism, and can then show a model that describes the various stages of the process.
At no point did science provide an answer. Because answers involve cognition, and interpretation, all of which reside entirely outside of the scientific mechanism.
At no point does science take the model it produced, and then derive higher meaning from it. That, is something that you do, entirely within your mind, outside of the scientific process itself.
Are you following?
It would be more fair for you to pick the topic, because I am going to pick topics that science has continually failed to provide answers for, well, for millennia now.
I could go on and on, but the point should hopefully be clear. The practice of science in no way provides actual answers to questions. All science can ever hope to do is to produce a model. That model may or may not be useful, the determination of which is an entirely separate level of cognition that science itself lacks the ability to affect.
At best, science can inform the individual who seeks answers. But ultimately those answers are derived outside of science itself.