Why are the Sciences Empirical?

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"As science progressed and knowledge expanded"

But Science never took up to investigate that "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist". Right, please?
Why, please?

Because nobody has ever come up with a testable hypothesis on that issue.

Why can't all Atheism people all together provide a testable hypothesis for Science to know, "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist", please?

Regards
_________________
[6:103]ذٰلِکُمُ اللّٰہُ رَبُّکُمۡ ۚ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ ۚ خَالِقُ کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ فَاعۡبُدُوۡہُ ۚ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ وَّکِیۡلٌ ﴿۱۰۳﴾
Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
[6:104]لَا تُدۡرِکُہُ الۡاَبۡصَارُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ یُدۡرِکُ الۡاَبۡصَارَ ۚ وَ ہُوَ اللَّطِیۡفُ الۡخَبِیۡرُ ﴿۱۰۴﴾
Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105]قَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ بَصَآئِرُ مِنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ ۚ فَمَنۡ اَبۡصَرَ فَلِنَفۡسِہٖ ۚ وَ مَنۡ عَمِیَ فَعَلَیۡہَا ؕ وَ مَاۤ اَنَا عَلَیۡکُمۡ بِحَفِیۡظٍ ﴿۱۰۵﴾
Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 6: Al-An`am

 

[Polymath257]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"As science progressed and knowledge expanded"

But Science never took up to investigate that "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist". Right, please?
Why, please?

Why can't all Atheism people all together provide a testable hypothesis for Science that "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist". Right, please?

Regards

Well, for one, it isn't their job. It is the job of those who believe in the existence of a deity to provide appropriate tests.

But, even more so, if you look through the theist literature, there seems to no real consensus on even what it means to *be* a deity, let alone how one would know how to test for the existence of such. It seems that theist arguments are like scattershot, hoping to hit something.

Given how vague and ambiguous the term 'deity' is in practice, it seems best to wait for the theists to give some guidance on what a test *could* look like, don't you think?

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, for one, it isn't their job. It is the job of those who believe in the existence of a deity to provide appropriate tests.

But, even more so, if you look through the theist literature, there seems to no real consensus on even what it means to *be* a deity, let alone how one would know how to test for the existence of such. It seems that theist arguments are like scattershot, hoping to hit something.

Given how vague and ambiguous the term 'deity' is in practice, it seems best to wait for the theists to give some guidance on what a test *could* look like, don't you think?

I have made certain changes in my post
#183, to elaborate my point,please.

Regards

 

[atanu]

But if the empirical data had gone against their insights, we would not know about them ....

I would not deny that. I will not however, partition the various modes of knowledge and rate them as inferior or superior. I believe that they go together and complement each other.

Even to set up an experiment to test certain thought experiment, you need thought and reasoning. OTOH, data, even if captured through most sophisticated equipment comes to us through senses and thus is representational. It's never the whole story. Some scientists consider data to be objectively true and fail to consider the holistic picture. They fail to ask proper questions. The questions are always philosophical. Without good questions, there can never be any science.

For example, some computer nerds and some very senior persons today are enthusiastic that within next few years we will have the electronic brain. I see enthusiasts here who fall for such talk without any contemplation. Very few of nerds think what kind of memory our minds hold. What amount of memory will be required to just house lifetime experiences of one person? This is just one example.

Reliance on empiricism in science has been facilitated by tremendous progress in instrumentation during industrial revolution. But is philosophy not behind these advances? Were Turing or Godel not philosophers? Were Einstein or Bohr not philosophers?

Greatest empiricist of modern times, Bertrand Russel, who along with G.E,. Moore, is credited for current popularity of materialism, however noted in An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (1940), 1969 Pelican ed., pp. 156-157 that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting.

I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that [it] itself cannot be known. While therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so. This, however, is a large problem.​

Any good philosopher will see that. But many scientists may not. Pure empiricism, IMO, can be a disaster, if not grounded in sound philosophy.

...

 

[paarsurrey]

I would not deny that. I will not however, partition the various modes of knowledge and rate them as inferior or superior. I believe that they go together and complement each other.

Even to set up an experiment to test certain thought experiment, you need thought and reasoning. OTOH, data, even if captured through most sophisticated equipment comes to us through senses and thus is representational. It's never the whole story. Some scientists consider data to be objectively true and fail to consider the holistic picture. They fail to ask proper questions. The questions are always philosophical. Without good questions, there can never be any science.

For example, some computer nerds and some very senior persons today are enthusiastic that within next few years we will have the electronic brain. I see enthusiasts here who fall for such talk without any contemplation. Very few of nerds think what kind of memory our minds hold. What amount of memory will be required to just house lifetime experiences of one person? This is just one example.

Reliance on empiricism in science has been facilitated by tremendous progress in instrumentation during industrial revolution. But is philosophy not behind these advances? Were Turing or Godel not philosophers? Were Einstein or Bohr not philosophers?

Greatest empiricist of modern times, Bertrand Russel, who along with G.E,. Moore, is credited for current popularity of materialism, however noted in An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (1940), 1969 Pelican ed., pp. 156-157 that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting.

I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that [it] itself cannot be known. While therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so. This, however, is a large problem.​

Any good philosopher will see that. But many scientists may not. Pure empiricism, IMO, can be a disaster, if not grounded in sound philosophy.

...

Good points raised by one.

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

I would not deny that. I will not however, partition the various modes of knowledge and rate them as inferior or superior. I believe that they go together and complement each other.

There is the concept of having a brain storm. Think up 10000 ideas, crazy ideas. Maybe 1 of them is true and can be verified.

And 1 new idea is worth 10000 bad ones.

Yes, you need the creativity to think up new ideas. But that creativity, while necessary to promote understanding is almost always wrong. The ideas, however creative, still need to be checked and tested before they can be accepted as true.

Even to set up an experiment to test certain thought experiment, you need thought and reasoning. OTOH, data, even if captured through most sophisticated equipment comes to us through senses and thus is representational. It's never the whole story. Some scientists consider data to be objectively true and fail to consider the holistic picture. They fail to ask proper questions. The questions are always philosophical. Without good questions, there can never be any science.

I disagree that the questions (even the good ones) are always philosophical. The point is that simply thinking about something doesn't mean you are doing philosophy. If I am thinking about math, I am doing math. If I am thinking about physics, I am doing physics. In both, the *good* questions tend not to be the philosophical ones (what is math? what is a number? what is matter?), but instead are the questions that arise in the subject itself.

For example, some computer nerds and some very senior persons today are enthusiastic that within next few years we will have the electronic brain. I see enthusiasts here who fall for such talk without any contemplation. Very few of nerds think what kind of memory our minds hold. What amount of memory will be required to just house lifetime experiences of one person? This is just one example.

So, is that a philosophical question or a question concerning the human brain?

Reliance on empiricism in science has been facilitated by tremendous progress in instrumentation during industrial revolution. But is philosophy not behind these advances? Were Turing or Godel not philosophers? Were Einstein or Bohr not philosophers?

Not primarily, no. They were not. Turing and Godel were primarily logicians and mathematicians, Einstein and Bohr were primarily physicists. In all these cases, the questions that they asked were NOT the questions that philosophy asks. They were the questions that logicians, mathematicians, and physicists ask.

Greatest empiricist of modern times, Bertrand Russel, who along with G.E,. Moore, is credited for current popularity of materialism, however noted in An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (1940), 1969 Pelican ed., pp. 156-157 that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting.

I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that [it] itself cannot be known. While therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so. This, however, is a large problem.​

Any good philosopher will see that. But many scientists may not. Pure empiricism, IMO, can be a disaster, if not grounded in sound philosophy.
...

I don't require it to be known that empiricism is true. I merely require that it work. Which it does.

Is it possible someone will find a way other than empiricism to find truths about the real world? Maybe, but I strongly doubt it. To *be* a truth requires some sort of ability to distinguish it from a falsehood. Whatever *that* ability is, is some sort of test. And the only way we have of testing about the real world is through our senses. And that is empiricism.

 

[paarsurrey]

1. Look up the word "Empirical".
2. Research "Scientific Method".

This should take you no more than about 15 minutes to an hour (max) and the answer to your question will become self-evident.

Is Scientific Method the same in all the disciplines of Science, please?

Regards
____________
"This entry could have been given the title Scientific Methods and gone on to fill volumes, or it could have been extremely short, consisting of a brief summary rejection of the idea that there is any such thing as a unique Scientific Method at all. Both unhappy prospects are due to the fact that scientific activity varies so much across disciplines, times, places, and scientists that any account which manages to unify it all will either consist of overwhelming descriptive detail, or trivial generalizations."
"An interesting aspect of Whewell’s fundamental ideas is that they can be discipline relative. An idea can be fundamental even if it is necessary for knowledge only within a given scientific discipline (e.g., chemical affinity for chemistry)."
"One can also look for regularities among the laws discovered in one domain, i.e., for a law of laws. Which “law law” will hold is time and discipline dependent and should be held open to revision."
"Importantly, the values that provide the norms and aims for scientific method may have transformed in the meantime. Method may therefore be relative to discipline, time or place."
"a break with the ideal of hypothesis-driven science (Burian 2007; Elliott 2007; Waters 2007; O’Malley 2007) and instead described as data-driven research (Leonelli 2012; Strasser 2012) or as a special kind of “convenience experimentation” in which many experiments are done simply because they are extraordinarily convenient to perform"
"Also within mainstream science, reference to the scientific method is used in arguments regarding the internal hierarchy of disciplines and domains. "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

 

[Polymath257]

Is Scientific Method the same in all the disciplines of Science, please?

Regards
____________
"This entry could have been given the title Scientific Methods and gone on to fill volumes, or it could have been extremely short, consisting of a brief summary rejection of the idea that there is any such thing as a unique Scientific Method at all. Both unhappy prospects are due to the fact that scientific activity varies so much across disciplines, times, places, and scientists that any account which manages to unify it all will either consist of overwhelming descriptive detail, or trivial generalizations."
"An interesting aspect of Whewell’s fundamental ideas is that they can be discipline relative. An idea can be fundamental even if it is necessary for knowledge only within a given scientific discipline (e.g., chemical affinity for chemistry)."
"One can also look for regularities among the laws discovered in one domain, i.e., for a law of laws. Which “law law” will hold is time and discipline dependent and should be held open to revision."
"Importantly, the values that provide the norms and aims for scientific method may have transformed in the meantime. Method may therefore be relative to discipline, time or place."
"a break with the ideal of hypothesis-driven science (Burian 2007; Elliott 2007; Waters 2007; O’Malley 2007) and instead described as data-driven research (Leonelli 2012; Strasser 2012) or as a special kind of “convenience experimentation” in which many experiments are done simply because they are extraordinarily convenient to perform"
"Also within mainstream science, reference to the scientific method is used in arguments regarding the internal hierarchy of disciplines and domains. "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

I think that *basic* model for the scientific method is consistent across the sciences.

So, collect data, formulate hypothesis, make predictions, test predictions, modify or reject hypothesis as needed, repeat.

Some areas, because of the subject matter or stage of development, emphasize one part of this sequence more than others. Some areas of science have more tools and more data to collect. Some are dominated by hypothesis formulation. And the emphasis can change over time. Data collection tends to be dominant for early stages (where the first data is coming in) and hypothesis formulation tends to be a middle stage (where sense is being made of the data). Then another round of data collection arises to see the limits of the good hypotheses that have been found.

But all areas of science have all of these steps.

 

[gnostic]

Why can't all Atheism people all together provide a testable hypothesis for Science to know, "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist", please?

You are being utterly absurd, paarsurrey.

Being an atheist (or a theist) isn’t a job.

Being a scientist is a job, whether you are a physicist, chemist or biologist.

Why would any atheist “provide a testable hypothesis” about God?

Atheism isn’t science. Theism isn’t science.

Second, a hypothesis is a falsifiable explanation, which have the potential of being tested.

And religion, particularly belief deity or deities are not falsifiable, therefore not testable.

Can you observe god? Can you do a video recording of God, or see god using a telescope or microscope?

Can you measure God?​

Evidence is about observation, about verification, about testing. If you cannot observe and measure God, then how on Earth are you supposed to test God?

There are no evidence for God or any other deity, paarsurrey.

You can believe or not believe in deity...and if you do believe in God, then that’s a matter of faith, not a matter of evidence, and certainly not science.

Stop confusing atheism and science.

 

[paarsurrey]

That doesn't really work, because at the crux of scientific progress is learning old ideas are wrong. There may always be a better way, but what doesn't work doesn't work, and we don't waste time trying it again. Being able to adequately falsify an established theory would be considered groundbreaking.

"but what doesn't work doesn't work"

Please elaborate.

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

Because that's what works.

Spoiler: Language

 

[paarsurrey]

You are being utterly absurd, paarsurrey.

Being an atheist (or a theist) isn’t a job.

Being a scientist is a job, whether you are a physicist, chemist or biologist.

Why would any atheist “provide a testable hypothesis” about God?

Atheism isn’t science. Theism isn’t science.

Second, a hypothesis is a falsifiable explanation, which have the potential of being tested.

And religion, particularly belief deity or deities are not falsifiable, therefore not testable.

Can you observe god? Can you do a video recording of God, or see god using a telescope or microscope?

Can you measure God?​

Evidence is about observation, about verification, about testing. If you cannot observe and measure God, then how on Earth are you supposed to test God?

There are no evidence for God or any other deity, paarsurrey.

You can believe or not believe in deity...and if you do believe in God, then that’s a matter of faith, not a matter of evidence, and certainly not science.

Stop confusing atheism and science.

In other words, is it a confirmation that "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist " is outside the domain of Science, Science denies/refuses to take up this question? The truthful Religion already claimed/claims* that G-d is outside the domain of science. Right, please?

Regards
______________
*[6:103]ذٰلِکُمُ اللّٰہُ رَبُّکُمۡ ۚ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ ۚ خَالِقُ کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ فَاعۡبُدُوۡہُ ۚ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ وَّکِیۡلٌ ﴿۱۰۳﴾
Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
[6:104]لَا تُدۡرِکُہُ الۡاَبۡصَارُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ یُدۡرِکُ الۡاَبۡصَارَ ۚ وَ ہُوَ اللَّطِیۡفُ الۡخَبِیۡرُ ﴿۱۰۴﴾
Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105]قَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ بَصَآئِرُ مِنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ ۚ فَمَنۡ اَبۡصَرَ فَلِنَفۡسِہٖ ۚ وَ مَنۡ عَمِیَ فَعَلَیۡہَا ؕ وَ مَاۤ اَنَا عَلَیۡکُمۡ بِحَفِیۡظٍ ﴿۱۰۵﴾
Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 6: Al-An`am

[57:1]بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ﴿۱﴾
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[57:2]سَبَّحَ لِلّٰہِ مَا فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡحَکِیۡمُ ﴿۲﴾
Whatever is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Allah; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
[57:3]لَہٗ مُلۡکُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ یُحۡیٖ وَ یُمِیۡتُ ۚ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرٌ ﴿۳﴾
His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He gives life and He causes death; and He has power over all things.
[57:4]ہُوَ الۡاَوَّلُ وَ الۡاٰخِرُ وَ الظَّاہِرُ وَ الۡبَاطِنُ ۚ وَ ہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ ﴿۴﴾
He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well.
[[57:5]
ہُوَ الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ فِیۡ سِتَّۃِ اَیَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسۡتَوٰی عَلَی الۡعَرۡشِ ؕ یَعۡلَمُ مَا یَلِجُ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ وَ مَا یَخۡرُجُ مِنۡہَا وَ مَا یَنۡزِلُ مِنَ السَّمَآءِ وَ مَا یَعۡرُجُ فِیۡہَا ؕ وَ ہُوَ مَعَکُمۡ اَیۡنَ مَا کُنۡتُمۡ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ بَصِیۡرٌ ﴿۵﴾
He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, then He settled Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters the earth and what comes out of it, and what comes down from heaven and what goes up into it. And He is with you wheresoever you may be. And Allah sees all that you do.
[[57:6]لَہٗ مُلۡکُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ وَ اِلَی اللّٰہِ تُرۡجَعُ الۡاُمُوۡرُ ﴿۶﴾
His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; and to Allah are all affairs referred.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 57: Al-Hadid

 

[gnostic]

In other words, is it a confirmation that "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist " is outside the domain of Science, Science denies/refuses to take up this question? The truthful Religion already claimed/claims* that G-d is outside the domain of science. Right, please?

The question of god’s existence is a matter of theism, atheism and agnosticism. It is theological or philosophical question, not a scientific question.

Theism, atheism, agnosticism and all other -ism are not SCIENCE. They are all cannot meet the requirements of hypothesis and scientific theory, which are being “Falsifiable”, “Scientific Theory” and “Peer Review”.

Religion are based solely on belief and faith, not on scientific or empirical evidence.

So the answer is “yes”, “belief” in god and “faith” in god are outside of science. Religion would fall under the category of theology, not science.

 

[atanu]

There is the concept of having a brain storm. Think up 10000 ideas, crazy ideas. Maybe 1 of them is true and can be verified.
And 1 new idea is worth 10000 bad ones.
Yes, you need the creativity to think up new ideas. But that creativity, while necessary to promote understanding is almost always wrong. The ideas, however creative, still need to be checked and tested before they can be accepted as true.

This is excellent. I fully agree. And that is why I say that you need to experience and validate for yourself the nature of self, stripped of mind-sensual perturbations.

I disagree that the questions (even the good ones) are always philosophical. The point is that simply thinking about something doesn't mean you are doing philosophy. If I am thinking about math, I am doing math. If I am thinking about physics, I am doing physics. In both, the *good* questions tend not to be the philosophical ones (what is math? what is a number? what is matter?), but instead are the questions that arise in the subject itself.

So, is that a philosophical question or a question concerning the human brain?

Not primarily, no. They were not. Turing and Godel were primarily logicians and mathematicians, Einstein and Bohr were primarily physicists. In all these cases, the questions that they asked were NOT the questions that philosophy asks. They were the questions that logicians, mathematicians, and physicists ask.

I am surprised at your very narrow outlook. I do not agree to a single assertion of yours. Philosophy is general and can apply to all kinds of enquiries. Logic being the study of reasoning and argument indeed comes under philosophy. And study of reasoning and argument also link philosophy to the sciences. Similarly study of mind-brain cannot be out of scope of philosophy

Philosophy - Wikipedia
Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – 495 BCE). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
...
Major sub-fields of academic philosophy include metaphysics ("concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being"),[27] epistemology (about the "nature and grounds of knowledge [and]...its limits and validity"[28]), ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, logic and philosophy of science.
​

​

I don't require it to be known that empiricism is true. I merely require that it work. Which it does.

I cannot show to you that I am laughing. Is what you claim about empiricism (in red above) supported by empirical data? You yourself prove what Russell (or ancient Vedantists said about Chaarvaaka philosophy). You proved that empiricism as a theory of knowledge is self refuting.Your assertion is not based on empirical data. In fact none of your assertion ever is. I repeat the extract from Russell below.

Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (1940), 1969 Pelican ed., pp. 156-157

I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that [it] itself cannot be known. While therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so. This, however, is a large problem.​

...

 

[siti]

So, the basis of Science is imagination. Right, please?

No. Wrong, thank you!

 

[Willamena]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"As science progressed and knowledge expanded"

But Science never took up to investigate that "G-d exists" or "G-d does not exist". Right, please?
Why, please?

Make a hypothesis, such that they could investigate it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science is empirical because this idea makes sense to a great many people, enough to start as a new philosophy. And it DELIVERED. We have an infinitely easier and longer life because of science with its technology and modern medicine. No other philosophy has given many even close to this. This is why it became set apart from all the other philosophies and granted its own unique category.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, the basis of Science is imagination. Right, please?

Regards

It would help the flow of the conversation if you would be serious and not deliberately take people out of context.

 

[siti]

It would help the flow of the conversation if you would be serious and not deliberately take people out of context.

Agreed - but I'm not sure "in context" is necessarily an option for some - it's pretty difficult to stay "in context" and deny the unparalleled success of science in explaining how the world is as it is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Agreed - but I'm not sure "in context" is necessarily an option for some - it's pretty difficult to stay "in context" and deny the unparalleled success of science in explaining how the world is as it is.

I agree that science has unparalleled success, except perhaps in the moral domain. But let's keep our tempers under control, my friend.