Thread: Science Explains Everything Challenge

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

I take it this stems from a misinterpretation of my post in the "Sony/ESP" thread?

That's a loaded question along the lines of "Did you ever suck a d*ck you didn't like?"

But I'll bite.

Science can't explain the spark of life or the source of consciousness (as in A.I.), while religion or spiritual teachings claim to.

Clearly you're just looking for something to pick on, so have at it!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I take it this stems from a misinterpretation of my post in the "Sony/ESP" thread?

Inspired by it.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

That's a loaded question along the lines of "Did you ever suck a d*ck you didn't like?"

How..? Is it not possible to say likewise to the accuser against science? What is something that can be explained by something else and not science..? Seems fair to me.

But I'll bite.

Science can't explain the spark of life or the source of consciousness (as in A.I.), while religion or spiritual teachings claim to.

Clearly you're just looking for something to pick on, so have at it!

I'm not picking on anything - it just goes to expose some things. Notice you said claim to whereas science does not claim to. This is still not facing the challenge really.

What am I picking at?

Does this not prove a point? If there are things that science cannot explain, then it ought to be true that there is something else that can explain!

Am I unfair for asking this...?

~

*raises hand*

I was tought this one in bible school! The answer is faith!

/thread

Originally Posted by O'nus

Am I unfair for asking this...?

Not unfair. Naive.

Science is for "the people", as it were.
It deals with objective matters and describes/proves/etc. them for all to see.

Wisdom deals with objective matters on a subjective basis.
And it is naive to think you will get an answer to such a question.

The point is: it isn't that there aren't things that can't be proven by science but are known by non-science; it's that you will not be given that knowledge just for the sake of having it "proven".

"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

That is the principle of non-science. It works on wisdom, personality, the mind and heart. That is exactly why it is "personal revelation" that proves such things. Because those with great wisdom are not bent on the concept of mass media.

To put it bluntly: no one owes you anything.
And do you truly think someone with great wisdom and power will share it with the public?

Therein lies the difference between faith and things truly "beyond".
Faith requires you to believe first, and then you supposedly get proof.
True wisdom and power requires you to want/need/yearn first, and then you will achieve what you desire.

And I assure you, curiosity doesn't even come close to truly wanting or needing any such things. Science is based on curiosity. And so it will never grasp that the greatest wisdom is gained through the power of the heart, through inspiration, rage, and a myriad of feelings, not the ponderings of the mind.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Science is for "the people", as it were.
It deals with objective matters and describes/proves/etc. them for all to see.

Wisdom deals with objective matters on a subjective basis.
And it is naive to think you will get an answer to such a question.

The ideal of science is to offer methods to reproduce subjective matters for other individuals to reach the same conclusion as the author, nay? Thus, science is subjective as well as it offers the means to subjective conclusions and experiences as others.

To put it bluntly: no one owes you anything.
And do you truly think someone with great wisdom and power will share it with the public?

This sounds like saving face more than anything. Am I supposed to quell the question on the basis that a non-speaking intellectual refuses to share wisdom with me asking for it's plausibility because I "fail" to see the power of subjective revelation? Science offers profound subjective revelation as well, don't neglect that.

And I assure you, curiosity doesn't even come close to truly wanting or needing any such things. Science is based on curiosity. And so it will never grasp that the greatest wisdom is gained through the power of the heart, through inspiration, rage, and a myriad of feelings, not the ponderings of the mind.

You are saying that science is not including inspiration, rage, and other feelings including the heart? I would find that an interesting thing to tell Galileo who died in the name of it and not too mention zounds of others that would attest differently. That's a very bold statement you make about scientists here.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are saying that science is not including inspiration, rage, and other feelings including the heart?

no it doesn't. science can't explain feelings and emotions. science doesn't even fully understand the brain...or mind.

there are scientists that have done experiments with emotions and water,plants, and human DNA. But most just discredit them. ANd say they are a hoax or whatever.

Merlock is pretty much right. Some things you need to look inside yourself to prove. Or you just have to experience them.

Science cannot and DID NOT prove lucid dreaming....you can't prove it....you can only experience it. All it says is that you become conscious during your dreaming.

And before you ever knew about lucid dreaming, if someone would have told you about it....or shared an experience with you..you probably would have just laughed them off. or thought they were crazy.


Some people are just so engulfed with the mass media. You would believe anything the mass media told you. Mass media is actually a way to keep people under control, as occultist as it might sound.


from juruara

how can a scientist claim to understand the mind? how can a stranger claim to understand your mind? they would first have to understand their own mind. what profession is better suited to understand the self, except the man who is self reflective? spirituality is the self reflective practice, not science.

I'm not saying science has no place in this field, it does. but science currently only cares to talk about the objective. its too chicken to get into the subjective, as things can no longer be as easily defined. problem is, our minds are experiencing a subjective reality! how much can science tell us then???

the 'science' that talks about the subjective reality is eastern practices. I called it a science because like science, it has defined things and has defined how those things relate to each other

and maybe in the future, we will recognize the science of the subjective reality

That quote pretty much wraps it in a nutshell. He hit the nail right on the head.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This sounds like saving face more than anything. Am I supposed to quell the question on the basis that a non-speaking intellectual refuses to share wisdom with me asking for it's plausibility because I "fail" to see the power of subjective revelation?

You don't have to quell anything. This isn't just about non-science either.

The governments, wealthy people and mad scientists that discover truly powerful and renovative scientific things will keep them hidden too.

My point is: whether it's science or "beyond", such questions are naive.
You have to yearn for and take what you want to find yourself.
No one will just give you anything of true meaning just because you want to know.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Notice you said claim to whereas science does not claim to.

Actually science is chock full'o theories that are nothing more than "claims".

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

Well, seeing as how you apparently misinterpreted what I said, I think it's only fair to me that it get cleared up.

What I said was that science alone cannot explain everything. You took the liberty of assuming that, by that, I was implying that there was something else that could, which isn't true at all.

As I (and many scientists) had said, science is widely known as the best tool that we have for explaining natural phenomena, and the universe at large. But, scientific discovery is limited to what humans can perceive. We have to be readily equipped to detect a phenomena and its components, before we can explain it. Even if it's something invisible to our naked senses, we then have to rely on tools that we invent, to broaden our perception. Does this mean that we will ever be able to see all forces and energies that exist in the universe? No. It takes a human mind that is willing to travel down certain avenues and, in many cases, let go of dogmatic paradigms, in order to devote his/herself to such fringe areas of exploration, and even then, there is no guarantee that (being that the discovery falls upon the shoulders of the human scientist) whatever force is at work in a phenomenon will ever be discovered.

By saying that "science, by default, can't explain everything," I wasn't implying that we have a better system or tool that can. I was stating that sometimes science isn't enough, because it ultimately falls back on the will and open-mindedness of the person using science as a tool, and in many cases, that person (or those people) just do not have the perspective required to get to the bottom of something, sufficiently.

The origin of consciousness, for example, may never be fully explained. It does not mean that there is a better tool than science with which to explain it, only that - so far - human investigation and experimentation, using said science, has not been sufficient.

As an aside: A major flaw presented in why this whole thing came up (as is duplicated often) is that - when trying to dissent against psychic phenomena, the people who are dead-set in proving that it doesn't exist usually say something like "I know there is a perfectly good, scientific explanation for it." This, alone, proves bias. IF such phenomena do exist, then the explanation, no matter what it is, will be scientific, because it will likely be explained using the scientific method. Those people throw the word scientific around, as if it somehow clashes with the idea of the 'paranormal,' when in fact - should these phenomena exist - they aren't even 'paranormal'. They are just normal. They aren't 'supernatural'. They are natural. People try to discredit the possibility of their existing by constantly referring to them as such, even when evidence that they might exist has been expressly documented.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

Beside "personal revelation", you really have nothing. There is nothing outside of subjective knowledge; no subjective Reality.

The problem is, science just explains. What happens when it tries to explain the unexplainable? Nothing happens. There is no capacity anyway. The unexplainable is Reality itself. Science is within it like a blade of grass in the field. The grass cannot really do anything but grow, and the field needs nothing to do, and it encompasses all possibility.

What can never be explained can only be revealed; revealed As It Is. And it can only be revealed since it already Is, as radical subjective Reality. If we ask "what is the unexplainable", there is no need for science; no need for any explanation, and no challenge. The typical problem is that there is the illusion of the contrary, which argues the need for an explanation. If the problems were understood and dissolved, there would be Divine Revelation.

It would be foolish to say that anything can or cannot be explained by science, since in reality science is only a method of inquiry and doesn't in itself offer any explanations.

If you are asking whether or not there is any truth that cannot be arrived at using the scientific method, this to me is also a foolish question since the only answer can be "only time will tell."

If you are asking if there are any phenomena which currently are unexplained through scientific means, then you should just look around you since the answers are everywhere. Conscious experience sticks out in my mind, although perhaps you include that in "personal revelation". I'd say that objective reality as a whole stands outside of any scientific inquiry, by its very definition. As a matter of fact, this one could really answer any of the three different questions I presented here. The scientific method is a form of subjective experience, and so could never even begin to deal with any possible objective state of existence.

If I'm going to be more serious about this,

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

For starters, science does not explain anything, nor does it give any answers in and of itself. It is not analogous to a religion that offers answers. The scientific method is no more than a tool that allows human beings to measure and observe objective reality with factual results. Theories and Laws arrived at through science are what do the explaining. Furthermore, because the scientific method encompasses all of objective reality, all other categories fall into the subjective realm, which equates to issues that are experienced via "personal revelation".

There is the scientific method, and there is personal revelation. There's nothing else. Your challenge is not actually possible, not from the way I understand it, and I'm assuming that's your point.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

How about the cosmological constant? It's incredibly finely tuned. A lot of people consider that the smoking gun pointing to an intelligent creator.

NOTE: Just because I said intelligent creator doesn't mean the bible. I wish people would stop automatically associating the idea of an intelligent creator to Jesus and the bible.

...the cosmological constant doesn't exist.

It was a kind of force which Einstein introduced so that his theory would predict a stationary universe. However he did this without any empirical justification at all - only an ancient prejudice that the universe had existed for eternity. He later called it the greatest blunder of his life.

I agree that the universe is fine tuned though. However, that doesn't really justify an intelligent creator to me (mainly because that just shifts the question of existence onto that creator, which solves nothing). I read in the New Scientist yesterday that physicists are increasingly coming round to the conclusion that there are many universes out there with different constants. They've been trying to iron out this problem by looking for some kind of set of conditions which would ensure that our universe is the only possible one, but it just hasn't worked. It's something I've always believed to true though, the multiverse theory, based upon philosophical reasoning: if there are many different universes (the estimate is an incredible 10^500), there will be a few (most likely a tiny tiny fraction) in which conscious life spontaneously arises through some process or other; and those universes are the ones you find yourself in, because it is impossible to find yourself anywhere else.

Go to a local qigong place and ask. It's not about believing, it's about experiencing. Everyone can experience it thought proper exercises/rituals/dances. All it takes is good instruction and practice.

I don't think there's a local qigong within 100 miles from here to be honest, but thanks.

I'll cover a little more Chi below, but what about the arts? Criticism in all fields of the arts supply massive explanatory frameworks to which science is irrelevant. The same applies to philosophy, the mother of science. Sci-ence, application of the intellect, has no power to address its own origins.

Originally Posted by O'nus

How is this not personal revelation..?

There's a massive literature explaining every aspect of Chi and it has been affirmed through practice by probably billions of individuals over hundreds of generation. If you dismiss any non-scientific explanation as "personal revelation," your question begs itself.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think there's a local qigong within 100 miles from here to be honest, but thanks.

If you're in the US and within 100 miles of any city larger than about 15000 people, there probably is at least one teacher of Qi jong and Tai Chi Chuan.

I'm not.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'll cover a little more Chi below, but what about the arts? Criticism in all fields of the arts supply massive explanatory frameworks to which science is irrelevant. The same applies to philosophy, the mother of science. Sci-ence, application of the intellect, has no power to address its own origins.



There's a massive literature explaining every aspect of Chi and it has been affirmed through practice by probably billions of individuals over hundreds of generation. If you dismiss any non-scientific explanation as "personal revelation," your question begs itself.



If you're in the US and within 100 miles of any city larger than about 15000 people, there probably is at least one teacher of Qi jong and Tai Chi Chuan.

What do you feel when you do Chi? i wish i could not be drained all the time....

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

What do you feel when you do Chi? i wish i could not be drained all the time....

Seems like O'nus realized the error of his ways and walked away, so I don't feel too bad derailing:

The most common practice involving Chi is Tai Chi Chuan, a Korean/Chinese martial art sometimes practiced as a fighting style, but more often as an exercise regimen and/or Taoist meditation. Qi jong is essentially calisthenics for Tai Chi, warm up exercises culminating in "permeating the Chi."

I'm only a dabbler myself--I took two weeks of Tai Chi in college before having to choose between it and my night job, and I've retained a 15-minute Qi jong routine as my preferred morning exercise, though I don't do it regularly. Part of the benefit is just that it's a stretching exercise, leaving you limber for the activities of the day, but I find it also leaves me with substantial energy and a sharpened sense of my body and the space around me throughout the day. I've also found an abbreviated version of "permeating the Chi" very helpful in enduring the occasional 9am-4am restaurant shift.

It's definitely worth taking a course, though walking into anything expecting miracles is a good way to get taken for a ride.

Originally Posted by Xei

...the cosmological constant doesn't exist.

It was a kind of force which Einstein introduced so that his theory would predict a stationary universe. However he did this without any empirical justification at all - only an ancient prejudice that the universe had existed for eternity. He later called it the greatest blunder of his life.

I agree that the universe is fine tuned though. However, that doesn't really justify an intelligent creator to me (mainly because that just shifts the question of existence onto that creator, which solves nothing). I read in the New Scientist yesterday that physicists are increasingly coming round to the conclusion that there are many universes out there with different constants. They've been trying to iron out this problem by looking for some kind of set of conditions which would ensure that our universe is the only possible one, but it just hasn't worked. It's something I've always believed to true though, the multiverse theory, based upon philosophical reasoning: if there are many different universes (the estimate is an incredible 10^500), there will be a few (most likely a tiny tiny fraction) in which conscious life spontaneously arises through some process or other; and those universes are the ones you find yourself in, because it is impossible to find yourself anywhere else.

I don't think there's a local qigong within 100 miles from here to be honest, but thanks.

Oh god, i can't even imagine THIS universe, let alone a friggin multiverse. How in the universes can this thing be so damn big? possibly infinite....so it would be like a balloon expanding from your air pumping it up like a "big bang".

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

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

Originally Posted by Invader

Is this a riddle?!

Science cannot explain an imaginary set of rules for an imaginary world. They are made up, and science deals purely with factual, objective reality.

So, what can explain imaginary rules for a made up world? Why, the game's rulebook of course! The imaginary world doesn't count as personal revelation if more than one person is participating in the delusion.

Give me my award.



[Edit] No, there are no real world objective phenomena that I can conceive of that can be explain by something other than science, unless the explanation is theoretical.

Nah, your conjecture is wrong. Science bases on hypotheses. It gives theses which are only valid if the hypotheses are true. Nothing keeps you from setting a bunch of different basic situations (a different reality), and foreseeing the behaviour of that system. The only difference is that there would be no way to observe things physically. But still, it is logically, and therefore scientifically possible.

One clear example of this is action games. Made up systems, different physical laws; but you can also analyse, experiment, and predict. Therefore science can study it. It has been done extensively. Only difference is, it isn't really useful for humans in general as compared to real physics.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

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

Style without substance, much? In which age were you born? Science does explain the mind. And it's much more boring and simple than you imagine. I could go all the way through a rigorous, hardcore explanation, but I will keep myself down to the following:

Synesthesia is a product of learning. You are, from young age, taught and conditioned to think that fire is warm and that fire is red. The brain tends to associate similar information, in order to ease learning, but also to provide more information in response to a specific stimulus. Therefore, as you associate fire with red, and fire with warm, you tend to associate red with warm. With enough reinforcement, you may see something red and immediately think of it as warm, without passing through the interconnecting idea, which is fire. This process is usually more intense when we're young, because we are not taught with scientific rigour - we are just taught the way it'll make us learn faster.

Schemed:

(through observation)
fire -> red
fire -> warm

(brain associates information)
red <-> fire <-> warm

(with time)
red <-> warm

We could discuss this in another thread, if you really want. In any case, my point was only to illustrate just a little bit of what neurosciences know about the mind nowadays. It is a fascinating field.

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.

Science cannot explain THIS:

*does something impossible.*