Thread: Science Explains Everything Challenge

Originally Posted by sloth

Science cannot explain THIS:

*does something impossible.*

lol win

Originally Posted by Xei

To be honest neuroscience has discovered next to nothing about the neural circuits of higher cognition.

That's directly paraphrasing Henry Markram who is pretty much the worldwide leader in these things.

I didn't mean to say neuroscience has discovered it all - it's a very modern branch of science. Only because it doesn't yet explain things, it doesn't mean it's incapable of that. For the gaps there are in neuroscience, there is always psychology, which *is* an incredibly accurate field of science.

And never use ad verecundiam, it is not a valid form of argument - especially not in science. And remember there are just too many arrogant scientists out there.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

...which goes back to science can't explain the mind at all.

Your former being already tackled, do not be so bold to say that science can't explain the mind at all - it shows an ignorance of psychology and neuroscience.

Originally Posted by Xei

To be honest neuroscience has discovered next to nothing about the neural circuits of higher cognition.

That's directly paraphrasing Henry Markram who is pretty much the worldwide leader in these things.

So sayeth one person. Joseph LeDoux wrote a book called "Synaptic Self" which exhausts how all thoughts and cognition are reducible. In addition, I do not think anyone would question Joseph LeDoux credibility, but credibility is never a sole reason to rely on a truth. Jean Pierre-Changeaux and his "Physiology of Truth" would also explain how all bodily functions can be reduced, including cognition.

At the end, this is the result of this thread:

- Science will not claim to explain pseudo-science, imaginary concepts, dogmatism, or other concepts that cannot be identified scientifically. This does not mean they are outside science completely, just at this time.

- Science will not claim to explain personal revelations aside from fundamental psychology. However special you think you are, there are usually many reasons, that are reducible, to your personality and your cognitive thoughts. See Dan Dennet for the further elucidation of how special you really are not.

- While concept like Chi Energy and riddles, etc. are not explained by science, they are still dogmatic and personal. They perpetuate and exist by constant reinforcement (false or true is up for debate) by many individuals that may not even utilize any methodology. To deny that fools reinforce psychic powers is to be truly naive of the human race. There are far too many people that think they can predict things and have special powers. Everyone thinks they are special and unique because you have a consciousness independent of others!

To be independent and exclusive from others thoughts does not necessitate invulnerability to quantification or qualification via scientific inquiry.

~

Love.
I know it's a chemical reaction of some sort, I'm not challenging, I'm curious :3

Originally Posted by guitarboy

Love.
I know it's a chemical reaction of some sort, I'm not challenging, I'm curious :3

Psychology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love

~

It doesn't explain the cause of love, only the types. What causes the compassion?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Everyone thinks they are special and unique because you have a consciousness independent of others!

I believe the reasons for being 'unique' or 'special' go far beyond just having a separate consciousness. It has more to do with people's individual abilities and personal choices, which are influence by the environment one grows up in and whatever genetic factors may effect behavior. Being 'special' just means having something that makes one valuable, and value is dictated by other people. Artists, engineers, writers, teachers, programmers, chemists, and so on are all valued, and if one were to break those fields down into the members that compose each one, you would find a share of individuals with remarkable talent that make them stand far apart from the others, whether that be in their approach to design or their ability to make a piece of work that can appeal to a large user base. You would also find a large share of people with no remarkable "talents" that set them apart. Where you want to draw the line with being special/unique and not special/unique is up to you.

And then there are people who don't believe anyone is special or unique, whatsoever. That throws your sweeping generalization out of the window altogether.

What inspired your statement? Was it the same thing that inspired the thread topic?

Originally Posted by Invader

I believe the reasons for being 'unique' or 'special' go far beyond just having a separate consciousness. It has more to do with people's individual abilities and personal choices, which are influence by the environment one grows up in and whatever genetic factors may effect behavior. Being 'special' just means having something that makes one valuable, and value is dictated by other people. Artists, engineers, writers, teachers, programmers, chemists, and so on are all valued, and if one were to break those fields down into the members that compose each one, you would find a share of individuals with remarkable talent that make them stand far apart from the others, whether that be in their approach to design or their ability to make a piece of work that can appeal to a large user base. You would also find a large share of people with no remarkable "talents" that set them apart. Where you want to draw the line with being special/unique and not special/unique is up to you.

This is all irrelevant to my point and digression.

And then there are people who don't believe anyone is special or unique, whatsoever. That throws your sweeping generalization out of the window altogether.

Do not be so eager to try and pull a "don't generalize" card. The fact is, everyone does think they are unique and special because you have your own consciousness. There is no denying this - you can only think for yourself, no one else (I mean this in the most cognitive way, not sympathetic). My point is that you are primarily concerned with you, self-preservation, selfishness, evolutionary priorities, etc. It is inevitable, you must be concerned with yourself because you are faced with your biology at every moment. As a consequence of consciousness and biology vis-a-vis, humans inevitably think themselves more important than "other" things.

What inspired your statement? Was it the same thing that inspired the thread topic?

My statement here is separate from the threads creation, really. It is more concentrated on the individuals selfish ego concern and then the tools used to reinforce ego-inflation or delusions of grandeur.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is all irrelevant to my point and digression.

Only because I understood your statement to mean something slightly different. I called this a generalization because you made it sound like every person individually internalized the belief that "I am special because I have separate consciousness". See where the misunderstanding arose?
Otherwise, sure, I can agree with your elaboration.

i must admit I haven't read all the posts, but I thought i would take up the challenge...

I googled it, sorry, I was going to mention something stupid but Onus seems so intense about this and I knew he would become insensed, so yeah I'm gonna blame my suggestions on others *whimper*

yes, from

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk//in...e_cant_explain

aside from the female orgasm, which i thought fascinating that it made the site's top ten, no. 1:

What came before and what comes after (the universe, beginning of time; end of same)

Onus, Onus, come out and play-ee-ay....

Originally Posted by O'nus

At the end, this is the result of this thread:

- Science will not claim to explain pseudo-science, imaginary concepts, dogmatism, or other concepts that cannot be identified scientifically. This does not mean they are outside science completely, just at this time.

- Science will not claim to explain personal revelations aside from fundamental psychology. However special you think you are, there are usually many reasons, that are reducible, to your personality and your cognitive thoughts. See Dan Dennet for the further elucidation of how special you really are not.

- While concept like Chi Energy and riddles, etc. are not explained by science, they are still dogmatic and personal. They perpetuate and exist by constant reinforcement (false or true is up for debate) by many individuals that may not even utilize any methodology. To deny that fools reinforce psychic powers is to be truly naive of the human race. There are far too many people that think they can predict things and have special powers. Everyone thinks they are special and unique because you have a consciousness independent of others!

To be independent and exclusive from others thoughts does not necessitate invulnerability to quantification or qualification via scientific inquiry.

~

If you come in with the bias that everything can be explained by science and ask, "What can science not explain?" then it's a given that you will dismiss all claims. Again, this thread's question begs itself.

By narrowing the field of discussion to the objective and quantifiable, you're essentially asking "What science cannot be explained by science?" and responding to everyone else with "That's not science!" What's the point? It's just a big Materialist wank party.

Science is wonderful and useful, but there are great swaths of human endeavor to which it is wholly irrelevant. How do you apply science to Finnegan's Wake, tonglen meditation or ballroom dancing? Relying solely on rigorous application of the intellect to any of the above will yield only frustration, yet there are whole bodies of investigation and explanation devoted to each, ordered less rigidly than the periodic table, but ordered nonetheless, and yielding modalities for further examination and for practice.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If you come in with the bias that everything can be explained by science and ask, "What can science not explain?" then it's a given that you will dismiss all claims. Again, this thread's question begs itself.

By narrowing the field of discussion to the objective and quantifiable, you're essentially asking "What science cannot be explained by science?" and responding to everyone else with "That's not science!" What's the point? It's just a big Materialist wank party.

Science is wonderful and useful, but there are great swaths of human endeavor to which it is wholly irrelevant. How do you apply science to Finnegan's Wake, tonglen meditation or ballroom dancing? Relying solely on rigorous application of the intellect to any of the above will yield only frustration, yet there are whole bodies of investigation and explanation devoted to each, ordered less rigidly than the periodic table, but ordered nonetheless, and yielding modalities for further examination and for practice.

It's not like he's saying "that's not science" to everything. He's saying "that's not science" to things that really aren't sciences. The claim that he's just being materialist is style without substance.

History and literature study are sciences, fiy. There is a difference between science explaining something, and science being useful to something. Ballroom dancing doesn't break any scientific theory.

Science is not opinion. Science is knowledge gathered through the scientific method. You are just mistaking art for science. Science can explain everything that's real, but nobody ever claimed that it's the only thing that matters in life. The main thing the OP was aiming at was pseudosciences and religion.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's not like he's saying "that's not science" to everything. He's saying "that's not science" to things that really aren't sciences. The claim that he's just being materialist is style without substance.

History and literature study are sciences, fiy. There is a difference between science explaining something, and science being useful to something. Ballroom dancing doesn't break any scientific theory.

Science is not opinion. Science is knowledge gathered through the scientific method. You are just mistaking art for science. Science can explain everything that's real, but nobody ever claimed that it's the only thing that matters in life. The main thing the OP was aiming at was pseudosciences and religion.

Take three classes each in the study of history and literature, then come back and tell me they're sciences. Next, study at least three sources on Materialism as a philosophical position and tell me again that O'nus's position isn't Materialist. Finally, contemplate the validity of using scientific criteria to assess what "science can't explain."

At that point we can continue this discussion.

Regardless of what the OP "was aiming at," it exposed vulnerabilities in its position that warrant further examination.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Take three classes each in the study of history and literature, then come back and tell me they're sciences. Next, study at least three sources on Materialism as a philosophical position and tell me again that O'nus's position isn't Materialist. Finally, contemplate the validity of using scientific criteria to assess what "science can't explain."

At that point we can continue this discussion.

Regardless of what the OP "was aiming at," it exposed vulnerabilities in its position that warrant further examination.

History is a science. Literature can and can not be a science. I didn't say O'nus isn't materialist, I just said that contesting his positions with "he's just being materialist" is style without substance. It doesn't matter if he is or isn't materialist, if his points are right.

Of course, science can't explain dogmas or imaginary beliefs. But I think that O'nus meant real situations and facts when he said "what science can't explain". For example, aboriginal american tribes used to think lightnings were manifestations from a god. Then science comes, explains it, and it becomes clear that lightnings are no godly manifestations. Stuff like that.

And what the OP was aiming at really does matter. There's no point in contesting apples if the OP was stating oranges.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Take three classes each in the study of history and literature, then come back and tell me they're sciences. Next, study at least three sources on Materialism as a philosophical position and tell me again that O'nus's position isn't Materialist. Finally, contemplate the validity of using scientific criteria to assess what "science can't explain."

Obviously you have neglected to read the fact that I have revamped my position in creating this thread as not a serious matter but a mistake on it's provocation and prepositioning. Although I understand your point profoundly, I am insulted that you think this of me and neglect to fully read my position.

What is it with you guys? I thought that, by now, the regulars on this board would know my position. I know you guys and I find I am rather understanding of that (DeathCell being a good example). But you guys seem to eager to jump on the chance to expose a "fallacy" rather than have a discussion?!

Come on.

Regardless of what the OP "was aiming at," it exposed vulnerabilities in its position that warrant further examination.

Are you eager for a concrete science publishing in every forum thread or are you after discussion? I do not know what made anyone think of me as being an arrogant materialist or something but I was only after a discussion. A "challenge" being a premise for discussion, not a proof. Holy crap.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If you come in with the bias that everything can be explained by science and ask, "What can science not explain?" then it's a given that you will dismiss all claims. Again, this thread's question begs itself.

Taosaur, I am really disappointed with you. You seem to be so excited at the idea that I would be creating a logical fallacy rather than simple discussion. I am really disheartened to see several people in these threads try to hard to jump on abolishing perceived arguments instead of making simple discussion.

As a note, I am not trying to argue anything. By "challenge" I did not intend it pretentiously. When I noticed that others obviously took it this way, I apologized and discontinued. Now I am steps from locking it out of humiliation and embarrassment - the latter being with those who I thought would understand my position.

By narrowing the field of discussion to the objective and quantifiable, you're essentially asking "What science cannot be explained by science?" and responding to everyone else with "That's not science!" What's the point? It's just a big Materialist wank party.

Yes, this is something I was already acknowledging when I said I realized I prepositioning.

I truly hope that the rest of you can take stride in my posts and know that I am more often simply making discussion rather than trying to make a fundamental proof. I feel a pressure to make threads now as it seems that their are too many people too anxious to scrutinize and argue rather than take things in stride and discuss - especially after admitting the problem myself.

All I have to say is that I am very disappointed. Please read my position thoroughly before trying to argue it - you may find it to be civil and agreeable to your own. And PLEASE don't be so anxious to try and boost your ego by exposing problems in every thread at any remote possibility.

*Sigh*

~

O'nus is packing up his toys and going home....

O'nus, re-examine your most recent posts. The tone is as strongly dismissive as mine was challenging. You and I both tend to express ourselves strongly in a way that invites heated opposition. If you don't like "discussions" in this tone then why pursue them so consistently?

The post I responded to so "disappointingly" was a virtual Materialist Manifesto. I'm not saying it as an insult or to imply arrogance (certainly no greater than my own), but to correctly identify the position expressed. Admittedly I identify it to expose its limitations, but was your categorization of matters beyond science (conveniently omitting any such as art or history for which you have a modicum of respect) any less reductionist?

If I'm challenging in response to your posts, take it not as a sign of disrespect but a vote of confidence that you can meet the challenge.

Kromoh, I apologize that I was rude--you do tend to rub me the wrong way, much as Seismosaur once did. I may have to put you on Ignore for your own good.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

O'nus, re-examine your most recent posts. The tone is as strongly dismissive as mine was challenging. You and I both tend to express ourselves strongly in a way that invites heated opposition. If you don't like "discussions" in this tone then why pursue them so consistently?

I did not think I had such an aggressive or challenging tone. Does this post of mine sound hostile..?

Originally Posted by Me

You pose a good point that I should have known..

I now realize that my creation of this thread is prepositional.

I apologize.

~

This being in response to a point that you have been expressing.

The post I responded to so "disappointingly" was a virtual Materialist Manifesto. I'm not saying it as an insult or to imply arrogance (certainly no greater than my own), but to correctly identify the position expressed. Admittedly I identify it to expose its limitations, but was your categorization of matters beyond science (conveniently omitting any such as art or history for which you have a modicum of respect) any less reductionist?

You see, that is what I hoped you would not see me as. I thought that, by now, you would know me to not be so closed minded a materialist or reductionist. Although I am certainly in their favor, I am by far not exclusively cheering for one team or the other. I enjoy the fervor of a symphony of schools of knowledge interacting to play the wonders of our lives - not just 1 instrument can express the profoundness of everything.

I am just sad that you, who I have debated with before, think this of me..

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You see, that is what I hoped you would not see me as. I thought that, by now, you would know me to not be so closed minded a materialist or reductionist. Although I am certainly in their favor, I am by far not exclusively cheering for one team or the other. I enjoy the fervor of a symphony of schools of knowledge interacting to play the wonders of our lives - not just 1 instrument can express the profoundness of everything.

I am just sad that you, who I have debated with before, think this of me..

~

I think it is the default position you tend to fall back on without examining it fully or even necessarily being aware of it, as here:

At the end, this is the result of this thread:

- Science will not claim to explain pseudo-science, imaginary concepts, dogmatism, or other concepts that cannot be identified scientifically. This does not mean they are outside science completely, just at this time.

- Science will not claim to explain personal revelations aside from fundamental psychology. However special you think you are, there are usually many reasons, that are reducible, to your personality and your cognitive thoughts. See Dan Dennet for the further elucidation of how special you really are not.

- While concept like Chi Energy and riddles, etc. are not explained by science, they are still dogmatic and personal. They perpetuate and exist by constant reinforcement (false or true is up for debate) by many individuals that may not even utilize any methodology. To deny that fools reinforce psychic powers is to be truly naive of the human race. There are far too many people that think they can predict things and have special powers. Everyone thinks they are special and unique because you have a consciousness independent of others!

To be independent and exclusive from others thoughts does not necessitate invulnerability to quantification or qualification via scientific inquiry.

I've highlighted some areas that lend to the dismissive tone of this post, which despite your earlier admission of the OP's faults seems to revert to the same position. Perhaps more telling are the omissions, of respected fields like history, art criticism and philosophy which likewise rely on "constant reinforcement," "personal revelation" and "dogmatism," if that's how one cares to characterize the non-empirical realms of human investigation. Also omitted is any discussion of how these schools of thought and practice might complement, guide or interact with our empirical investigations, or any consideration of the nature of shared subjective realities independent of empirical validation. The strong implication of your final statement is that only phenomena open to objective quantification, now or in the future, are 'real'--the defining tenet of Materialism.

This is not the first thread in which you address all things subjective and immaterial in an insultingly dismissive manner of which you seem unaware. You may recall numerous R/S threads in which I tried to point out that this tone precludes discussion with any but the most combative of religious/spiritual persons.

Now, I also take a strong (dare I say dickish) tone in many discussions, largely just from love of language and the joy of watching ideas clash. I take great pleasure in uncovering the grounds of debate--all that has been assumed and taken for granted--and sometimes, without much thought, I deploy rhetorical napalm to that end. I cannot apologize sincerely for this behavior, because I enjoy the results: at the least a great stirring-up of the mud, and occasionally revelation of truth.

Please understand there is no enmity in it, only love of knowledge and thrill of competition (sometimes too much of the latter, I know). I appreciate your contributions and respect your intellect and what I take for a good-hearted nature.

Be well.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I think it is the default position you tend to fall back on without examining it fully or even necessarily being aware of it, as here:

I literally groaned out loud when I read this post, Taosaur.

Seriously.. why?! Either you really do not understand what I am saying or I am terrible at stating it.

I am going to go step by step here and try to explain this as clearly (not stupidly, I am just saying you are misunderstanding my intent or that I am bad at declaring it).

I've highlighted some areas that lend to the dismissive tone of this post, which despite your earlier admission of the OP's faults seems to revert to the same position. Perhaps more telling are the omissions, of respected fields like history, art criticism and philosophy which likewise rely on "constant reinforcement," "personal revelation" and "dogmatism," if that's how one cares to characterize the non-empirical realms of human investigation. Also omitted is any discussion of how these schools of thought and practice might complement, guide or interact with our empirical investigations, or any consideration of the nature of shared subjective realities independent of empirical validation. The strong implication of your final statement is that only phenomena open to objective quantification, now or in the future, are 'real'--the defining tenet of Materialism.

Sweet baby Jesus.

Let me explain that summary you just made..

You see, an institution ought not to claim things about those things they do not understand or encapsulate.

You do not see Dream Views dictating ethics about ld4all just the same as you do not see science dictating how psychic powers work (which, in the science realm, is called pseudo-science!).

Please do not be too sensitive. When I call something dogmatic or pseudo-science it is not pejorative.

Oh my life - are you guys so sensitive to these terms that the very mention causes your blood pressure to increase?! I am a scientist. I enjoy and love science. I have terms to call other things outside of science that I will not claim to understand yet or to dictate yet. Those terms are not intended as an insult!

This is not the first thread in which you address all things subjective and immaterial in an insultingly dismissive manner of which you seem unaware. You may recall numerous R/S threads in which I tried to point out that this tone precludes discussion with any but the most combative of religious/spiritual persons.

I apologize if my terminology seems denigrating but this is simply how I am referring to those things in my institutional set of knowledge. When I see something that claims to be science but does not employ scientific methods, I will call it pseudo-science. This does not mean I think it is stupid, wrong, or anything insulting - it is simply a term I use to describe those things that claim to be scientific but do not employ the right methodology of what they claim. The same goes for other words I am using.

Now, I also take a strong (dare I say dickish) tone in many discussions, largely just from love of language and the joy of watching ideas clash. I take great pleasure in uncovering the grounds of debate--all that has been assumed and taken for granted--and sometimes, without much thought, I deploy rhetorical napalm to that end. I cannot apologize sincerely for this behavior, because I enjoy the results: at the least a great stirring-up of the mud, and occasionally revelation of truth.

So.. what you are saying is.. you like trying to anger people..? I do not understand. If you are truly trying to get to the "grounds" of debate, then you are also assuming that I am always debating something when I desperately trying to tell you that I am simply trying to make discussion and not prove something.

As a note - I thought that I spoke plainly. There is no undercurrent agenda I a have here in a guise to ruse you into a conclusion so that I can maliciously laugh at you.

Please understand there is no enmity in it, only love of knowledge and thrill of competition (sometimes too much of the latter, I know). I appreciate your contributions and respect your intellect and what I take for a good-hearted nature.

Be careful of becoming a ball-hitter though.

These are the people that will swing away at any chance they have - the type that swing at every pitch. Just because you may see a flaw, fallacy, or illogical thought in a comment does not necessitate the action of pointing it out at all times - this is how thought experiments survive.

When I am making threads for the sake of arguing or proving something - I will do my best to tell you.

When I say "challenge" in this thread - I truly mean it in stride. I do not think that it proves anything or that I would laugh at you if you could not. It's just a thought that came to my mind to start a discussion (which it had) and hoped you guys would know that I am not trying to be prepositional - just trying to be provocative.

Okay...?

~

Oh my life - are you guys so sensitive to these terms that the very mention causes your blood pressure to increase?! I am a scientist. I enjoy and love science. I have terms to call other things outside of science that I will not claim to understand yet or to dictate yet. Those terms are not intended as an insult!

You were the one bristling at my pointing out the Materialism of your position. My only emotional investment came at the point you said you were insulted, when that was not my intention. I did let myself be annoyed at Kromoh's ill-informed and ill-thought-out contribution, which likely muddied the waters and for that I apologize.

You see, an institution ought not to claim things about those things they do not understand or encapsulate.

I accept and honor this as your intention, and your words betraying assumptions to the contrary, I bring them to your attention that you may better serve your stated purpose. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of conflict, but to get at the truth and advance the discussion.

Now, if you want to discuss what places certain human disciplines beyond science's purview, I accept subjectivity as a criterion, but propose that the subjective is at least as large a realm as the objective and contains many common spaces not "reducible, to your personality and your cognitive thoughts." Revelation, or understanding, while not expressible in quanta, is testable through recognition by those who have realized it before you: as much so in a Liberal Arts thesis defense as in a Zen ashram.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Now, if you want to discuss what places certain human disciplines beyond science's purview, I accept subjectivity as a criterion, but propose that the subjective is at least as large a realm as the objective and contains many common spaces not "reducible, to your personality and your cognitive thoughts." Revelation, or understanding, while not expressible in quanta, is testable through recognition by those who have realized it before you: as much so in a Liberal Arts thesis defense as in a Zen ashram.

Perfect answer. I cannot argue it.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Perfect answer. I cannot argue it.

~

Fine. *Goes off for a Universalist wank party*