Thread: What are your favourite simple things that science just cannot explain?

Science can explain everything.

Add "yet" to the title, of course.

Originally Posted by Replicon

I'm thinking of putting together a toastmaster speech about simple things we take for granted, that science doesn't actually have a clue as to how/why it works. I don't want to talk about complicated particle physics at the brink of our studies, but rather, really simple every day things, like "yawning"... Science has no clue as to why we yawn. And I think that's kind of cool.

What are your favourites? (these have to be observable, everyday things, not things that can be explained away like OBE, etc.)

Why it is, in this day and age, people can get a stack of papers from the most prestigeous institutes of learning, and yet still speak no better than a cave man, asserting that the inannimate is the animate. The dreaded beast call Anthropomorphism stalks mankind, and kills by the billions and billions.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Where the FUCK all my left socks disappear to!!

Ever see the underpants gnomes on South Park?



Profit for underpants may have not panned out, they may have changed to left socks

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Why it is, in this day and age, people can get a stack of papers from the most prestigeous institutes of learning, and yet still speak no better than a cave man, asserting that the inannimate is the animate. The dreaded beast call Anthropomorphism stalks mankind, and kills by the billions and billions.

Yes, we get it. Science doesn't explain anything. People utilise science to explain things.
Nobody cares.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yes, we get it. Science doesn't explain anything. People utilise science to explain things.
Nobody cares.

Zi-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?"
The Master replied, "What is necessary to rectify names."
"So! indeed!" said Zi-lu. "You are wide off the mark! Why must there be such rectification?"
The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.
If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
[The link between linguage and human will--expressed by great philosophers throughout history.]
When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.
When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.
When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
(Analects XIII, 3, tr. Legge)

One can take that quote to sum up the aim of Plato's work, the Elements of Euclid, even the point of Scripture that man needs to learn judgment. They are all one and the same idea. So, even though a few care, someone does.

Science does not explain anything. Explanation comes through the correct understanding and utilization of langauge--it is a craft. As Confucius, as many others, point out, In the Beginning Was the Word.

In b4 people are like "dude, no one knows what that means or how it relates to the topic."

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Zi-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?"
The Master replied, "What is necessary to rectify names."
"So! indeed!" said Zi-lu. "You are wide off the mark! Why must there be such rectification?"
The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.
If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
[The link between linguage and human will--expressed by great philosophers throughout history.]
When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.
When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.
When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
(Analects XIII, 3, tr. Legge)

One can take that quote to sum up the aim of Plato's work, the Elements of Euclid, even the point of Scripture that man needs to learn judgment. They are all one and the same idea. So, even though a few care, someone does.

Science does not explain anything. Explanation comes through the correct understanding and utilization of langauge--it is a craft. As Confucius, as many others, point out, In the Beginning Was the Word.

Yes, however everyone understands what is meant by the question in the OP. So it does not matter.

Oh and following on from what people have already said to you....
If you care about the correct use of language to convey ideas so much, stop writing in barely comprehensible English.

pro tip: it doesn't matter how many archaic meanings of words you use or ancient grammar systems you study. If ordinary people can't understand what you say or mean, you're doing it wrong.

There's nothing science can't explain. There are only things the current batch of scientists can't explain. BIG difference.

Originally Posted by cmind

There's nothing science can't explain. There are only things the current batch of scientists can't explain. BIG difference.

Baseless assumption.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Baseless assumption.

Are you going to explain why or are you just going to throw that out there and hope for the best?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Baseless assumption.

Baselessly assuming his assumption is baseless.

As stated, the claim is obviously wrong. Can science explain why it is morally wrong for me to murder my neighbors and steal their belongings? Cmind may not have intended his claim to encompass these sort of questions, but like I said, it does as stated, and consequently is obviously wrong.

Yes I think moral problems are beyond the scope of science. Science is an organized body of knowledge that attempts to explain and predict events in the natural world. It does not attempt to explain morality.
There are some things science cant explain but I'm not gonna throw away my hammer because it does not tie my shoe laces, science has a specific function but it is still one the most useful tools we humans possess.

Originally Posted by DuB

Can science explain why it is morally wrong for me to murder my neighbors and steal their belongings?

One can argue that societies with these behaviours did not fare well when pitted against societies that care about one another. One can argue that compassion and doing well by those similar to you has evolved much like pair-bonding and nurturing (for raising the little ones).

You COULD develop a scientific model for "morality" (and I'll bet you many HAVE), but it's just not the most useful model for most people to discuss it.

That's not an explanation for whether or not the action is morally wrong. That's simply an explanation for why the opinion that the action is wrong happens to be common among modern humans. Surely you understand the difference.

Originally Posted by DuB

That's not an explanation for whether or not the action is morally wrong. That's simply an explanation for why the opinion that the action is wrong happens to be common among modern humans. Surely you understand the difference.

What this seems to imply is that there is some sort of objective morality in the universe. If humans don't set their own moral code (via popular opinion), then who or what does?

It doesn't imply that there is an objective morality. Let morality be as subjective as you like. Let every man have his own morality. Does that now somehow make the issue of whether an action is morally wrong a scientific question? Better yet, can science explain why there is or is not an objective morality in the first place?

Look, I'm about as enthusiastic for science as you can get--I'm working on my PhD in experimental psychology and intend to do behavioral research for a living--but if you seriously think that there is no question at all that science can't answer, I'm sorry, but you are kidding yourself.

Well, I never said science can answer everything. I'm just wondering why exactly a question on morality can't be answered using science. We have the technology to examine how the brain works, and how moral decisions are made. If morality exists in the minds of humans, we have the increasing technological ability to detect it and understand it. To some extent, we already have. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, here. We have a somewhat good understanding of how humans set moral codes, and how moral decisions are made on an individual basis. So yeah, at least in part, we have the ability to analyze morality in scientific terms.

Science gives us the tools to answer questions about how humans perceive morality. So in this sense, I completely agree that science can answer certain questions related to morality. I am interested in such questions myself. But there are fundamental questions of morality that it can't answer, because they aren't empirical questions at all. Can you or I perform an experiment that will tell us whether or not it is morally wrong to murder my neighbors and steal their belongings? Of course not. We could, in principle, perform such a sadistic "experiment" to tell us what the social and psychological consequences of such an action may be. (Good luck getting IRB approval on that one!) But at the end of the day, whether or not those social and psychological consequences amount to moral wrong-doing is a judgment call that is not within the realm of science. That's my only point, and I'm a little confused at your resistance to accept what seems to me to be such an obvious point.

Originally Posted by cmind

There's nothing science can't explain. There are only things the current batch of scientists can't explain. BIG difference.

I already said that. Except you tried to refine it and made it wrong. The current batch of scientists may be able to explain it, they just haven't yet.
So it suffices to say "Scientists can explain everything given enough time"

Originally Posted by DuB

As stated, the claim is obviously wrong. Can science explain why it is morally wrong for me to murder my neighbors and steal their belongings? Cmind may not have intended his claim to encompass these sort of questions, but like I said, it does as stated, and consequently is obviously wrong.

Science can't explain why it is morally wrong. Correct. Because morals are not real.
Which is the same reason science can't prove religions wrong.

EDIT: Oh, somehow missed a few posts, I just read that you are studying to do psychology. That explains why you think science can't answer everything. You'll probably be a perfect fit for the pseudo science that is modern psychology.

Originally Posted by tommo

Science can't explain why it is morally wrong. Correct. Because morals are not real.
Which is the same reason science can't prove religions wrong.

I can accurately answer any question that matters.

Do you mean it? lol