Religion
Related: About this forumCertain things make me think that there are great things well beyond science.
Babies, compassion for others, and sunrises like this one from January, for example:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But if it's what you need, knock yourself out.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But this one was and, consistent with the old adage, the red sky at morning was followed by rain showers in the late afternoon.
More to the point, there will always be things that cannot be explained by science or religion.
And both institutions are in the habit of making shit up when they don't have full explanations.
You know that's true!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)than there were today. Religion..just the opposite. I know which I'll take.
And science doesn't "make shit up" and then declare it to be immutable doctrine, not subject to evidence or critical examination. Religion..just the opposite. Again.
Do try again, though...I love an intellectual pinata on Easter weekend. Better than chocolate eggs.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You seem to come at any original idea as something to be attacked or challenged and then add to your not-so-clever reply some self-congratulatory observation.
It's adorable, but it doesn't constitute dialogue, still it's adorable!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #11)
Post removed
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You guys are so predictable.
Nothing I've claimed is bullshit. You might not agree and that's fine but it doesn't make my world view bullshit.
Suggesting such a thing is usually a clear indication that the person making that claim has nothing of substance to say.
For others, my "bullshit" observation is this:
Some things are greater than science, science and faith can and do coexist, the tension between the two is fascinating and not unhealthy to anyone enlightened enough to embrace both, and both institutions make shit up, and that's OK!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)While others are just happy to experience the wonders of this life without the need for an explanation based on unequivocally empirical data.
Good to see you smiling and loving life. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'a need for an explanation'.
Forget empirical evidence, let's just pull something out of our asses and go with that!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That's the explanation. An integral part of the human experiment, like art and music. Humans are creative by nature, thus we imagine that some super being must have created us.
There is no fodder for argument here. Imagination is as real as anything else.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Isn't and never will be. The only way imagination is an explanation is if you happen to imagine the correct solution, and then verify it against the evidence and it happens that your imagined solution was correct, or close enough to bridge to the real solution.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Imagination is not about being correct or not. It is specific to each individual.
All imagination stems from the mind, which is one tiny part of the universe. Science is the study of that universe. Religion is based on how believers imagine the universe.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Since imagination is hypothesis, that's fine. I agree. But there's a problem; some people insist their hypothesis is both real, and how others should live their lives. Worse, some move to enforce their hypothesis on others, and worse still, get upset or even violent when you deny their hypothesis.
Science has tools for dealing with individuals that bypass the process and attempt to enforce their hypothesis as a working theory without proving it. Religion does not.
Qualitative difference between the two totally non-overlapping magisteria.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)what use then, is religion?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That "mechanism" does not seem as important. But you should address the question to a believer. Religion is a tool for people of faith. It has no use for those of us who do not believe.
Kinda like a gun. Some think they are useful, while others have no use for them. Each to his own.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)What level of respect does it command, from those of us that don't use that particular tool?
I can relate the level of respect those of us who are gun owners receive, from people like you...
(I find that an interesting analogy you chose, but perhaps it has too much baggage to be truly useful... then again...)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How you use your gun or bible is what counts. Stick either one in my face and we're gonna have a problem.
My respect for others is based on their behavior, not their beliefs, no matter how disagreeable I may find the beliefs.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I own 3 5.56 NATO rifles. One indistinguishable from weapons our troops used in Afghanistan/Iraq. (Though older, having been produced in 1986)
You used an awful lot of adjectives to describe a group to which I belong, many of which are untrue. (My weapons are kept in a hardened multi-factor authentication safe at all times they are not in use.)
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I will never stop learning until I'm dead.
I didn't know that wanting to learn things is a religion in itself, that's a particularly stupid statement.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I can't agree with this more. What a terrible way to go through life. Learning new things is what I live for.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Presumably, before we learn how to move human consciousness into machines. Otherwise, perhaps that hunger will live on, after all.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I prefer to keep an open mind rather than hold the rigid belief that man will find answers for everything. I love science and I have little love or respect for religion. But they serve different purposes. Science serves to investigate the how of things, while religion serves to answer the why. "why" is a strictly human construct.
Those who claim to be rational and scientific in their arguments, all too often fall into the trap of trying to explain the "why" of things. Science observes phenomena and draws conclusions, it does not judge or ascribe blame. Only believers do that.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)is testable. Didn't know that was an example of rigid thinking and not keeping an open mind, oh wait, its not, that's BS, something you seem to specialize in.
Do you have anymore strawmen to erect?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Your open mind does not appear interested in a civil conversation. So let's leave it there.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Art, music and religion are not testable by science. There is no experiment, with or without replicable results, that can tell you whether Leonardo or Michelangelo was the better artist, or whether Hamlet or Macbeth is the better play. One may have an opinion on the matter, but there is no scientific test.
Neither is there any scientific test for a god or gods. Most of the wrangling here seems to be premissed on the existence or non-existence of Yahweh or a Yahweh-like divinity. But what if divinity doesn't have those culture-bound characteristics? Would a culture-bound science even recognize a god if it found one?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Who is the
"Those who claim to be rational and scientific in their arguments, all too often fall into the trap of trying to explain the "why" of things."
category of which you speak?
We can do 'why' as a causal analysis. Do it all the time. But that doesn't seem like the sort of 'why' you are referring to there.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 3, 2015, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Tired old cliche used by religious people who don't understand the definition of science.
You're implying that religion can answer questions that science can't.
Fail.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you think the universe was created for some reason? That's what religious folk believe.
What is your definition of science?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Idiotic questions about whether or why the universe was "created" aren't worthy of a response.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It is not a question I ask, but I don't call others idiots for asking it. Religion is full of motive, while science is devoid of motive. Why would we look for facts when reading fiction, even though there may be a sprinkling here and there?
I don't like conflating religion and science. They are pretty incompatible.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Trying to get my post hidden by claiming I called others idiots is lame.
And predictable.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)um, uh, gosh no, that is just nonsense.
The explanation scientists generally use for things they don't understand is "this is a thing we don't understand".
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I prefer a world view that takes in everything, science and metaphysics, thus my universe is vast and unlimited.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I often stand in awe at the majesty of the universe, and I don't believe in bullshit.
Strange, ain't it?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I know, it's clear, many or most people can't grasp conflicting concepts and aren't comfortable with the dialectic.
To me, it comes very naturally.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Well, it would appear my dictionary is broken.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I mean, why make shit up when the real explanation is pretty awesome and mind-blowing ... and true?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just ask Carl Sagan:
"We inhabit a universe where atoms are made in the centers of stars; where each second a thousand suns are born; where life is sparked by sunlight and lightning in the airs and waters of youthful planets; where the raw material for biological evolution is sometimes made by the explosion of a star halfway across the Milky Way; where a thing as beautiful as a galaxy is formed a hundred billion times - a Cosmos of quasars and quarks, snowflakes and fireflies, where there may be black holes and other universe and extraterrestrial civilizations whose radio messages are at this moment reaching the Earth.
How pallid by comparison are the pretensions of superstition and pseudoscience; how important it is for us to pursue and understand science, that characteristically human endeavor."
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Is he so sure that there is no non-terrestrial science?
His statement could be the definition of pretentious behavior, as well as being dismissive of what cannot be observed under a microscope.
Could Sagan measure beauty? A very non-scientific term indeed. Why did he use it?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There is plenty of pretension and arrogance in the community.
But my favorite scientists are the ones who admit to the fallibility of science and scientists, and are even able to laugh at themselves about it.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
I would place him in the Richard Dawkins category of scientists.
Of Dawkins, from a book review by Terry Eagleton:
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince
Rather than Einstein's more nuanced, less certain view:
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Too bad he wasn't properly deferential like the Old™ Atheists.
Of course Richard Dawkins really isn't qualified to criticize religion as noted in the Courtier’s Reply:
"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)like Dawkins. But add a heavy dose of contempt for Dawkins. And to what end? An intellectual version of "mine is bigger than yours" might impress some but in the end it is still his belief vs. another's belief.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And trying to discuss that great man with someone like you does him a disservice.
My dining room table* has a better understanding of Sagan's mind.
*"Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table: I have no interest in doing it."
Response to questioner at a town-meeting in Dartmouth, Massachusetts (18 August 2009)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barney_Frank
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)or is there a mystical side that the uninitiated can never appreciate?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)All they can do is repeat themselves and call us names.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Because I chose to honor both religion and science, I'm assumed to be a member of some unnamed group and then all these associations are made or assumed.
I don't dismiss science, I am a practitioner of science. But that doesn't mean that I hold science in some special esteem.
Science is not infallible, and I'll call them on it when they fuck up. As long as humans are in the mix there will be fuck ups.
And I don't hold religions in any special esteem either; all the same opinions about their fallibility apply.
I embrace both worlds and for some reason that seems to offend people, cause them to jump in with insults and arguments when there's no argument being proposed.
There are many things in our experience that defy scientific and religious explanation.
Funny that a simple photo of a sunrise out my window one morning should evoke such reactions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Idiotic statements about science on DU usually evoke such reactions.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Making shit up is at the core of scientific inquiry.
A hypothesis = educated guess = making shit up before testing it and being able to call it likely to be true, replicable, etc.
That's all scientists, we all make shit up and then we test it.
Others actually make shit up and then stick to it like fact, but they're phonies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct#Forms_of_scientific_misconduct
Lighten up.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Anyone who thinks "making shit up" is scientific inquiry is either pretending to be a scientist or shouldn't be one.
Like internet "scientists" who compare religion to science on DU and insist it's a valid comparison because ... reasons.
I'm light as a feather.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But in a way, they do!
Not nearly so much as certain other institutions, like government research agencies, do.
Did you notice that I never mentioned religion or beliefs in the OP, only in replies to replies?
The premise of the OP is simply that there are more things to life than the ones that are explained by science.
I would think that you might be able to agree with that much.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't care that you're awed by nature, I think it's awesome too. I only stepped in when you grossly misrepresented science in order to compare it to woo/religion.
Frankly your statements remind me of the anti-science rhetoric used by Republicans.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)include comparing "the scientific consensus on catastrophic climate change" to ridiculous religious beliefs.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Comparing scientists to "flat earthers".
Fucking shameless.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)now this sophomoric attempt to put us in our place with such stunning examples like a babies smile, or a mediocre sunset, like those aren't the standard go tos of basic believers everywhere.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You guys just can't stand it when I make a valid point that can't be refuted and can only be responded to with insults and mis-characterization.
Nobody in this thread has yet to provide a scientific explanation for:
Why we feel emotional at certain visual scenes, or works of art or music?
What is the mechanism by which life and identity are initiated in an infant or fertilized egg?
There are other questions that have been raised but I'm not going to scour the thread to find them.
Science can't explain certain things, just as I said in my OP.
And you just can't bring yourselves to admit that it's true.
Too funny!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"And you just can't bring yourselves to admit that it's true."
Please proceed to support your claim, and you might be surprised.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The 'valid point' I had a problem with was when you said that "both institutions are in the habit of making shit up when they don't have full explanations"
You misrepresented science so that it was as intellectually dishonest as religion.
Religion manufactures answers, science answers what it can and theorizes about what it can't. It doesn't lie.
No, what you said was that "Babies, compassion for others, and sunrises" were "well beyond science."
There's a difference between saying 'things are beyond science' and 'science can't explain everything'.
What's funny is that you've revised your original statement and are now pretending that I'm debating the revision.
And by funny I mean disingenuous.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Sunsets, no way for science to explain those crazy things. Emotions are far too beyond those Spocks in labcoats.
Best declare that no one will ever figure them out, naturally.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Anyone who thinks "making shit up" is scientific inquiry is either pretending to be a scientist or shouldn't be one.
Others actually make shit up and then stick to it like fact, but they're phonies.
Like internet "scientists" who compare religion to science on DU and insist it's a valid comparison because ... reasons.
I'm light as a feather.
This is the best thread I've read in ages!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Calling Carl Sagan rude and self important and accusing him of pretension and arrogance is just pathetic.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Smarmy Doofus has nothing on these whips. Carl, an amazing human being slandered. Weren't we all admonished for saying nasty things about the dead? Never mind, it's only an Internet forum.
I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Thanks!
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)you are either ally or enemy. Black or white.
By saying that faith may provide answers you have branded yourself the enemy to the science worshipers.
Just as the intolerant religious types brand science as the enemy of faith.
One example, music is both mechanical and mystical. It is composed of notes and the space between them, and is also based on intervals. But it can also make one cry. There is no scientific explanation for the emotional response. (Unless the music is too loud)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Namely, that people who see science as the only reliable method by which to understand the universe are qualitatively no different from ideologues who hold the opposite to be true.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)but talked about intolerance among the two groups
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Skeptics aren't analogous to religious zealots. I don't have enemies. And disagreement, even strong disagreement, isn't fucking "intolerance".
If this were a discussion of, say, the relative merits of socialism and anarcho-syndicalism, both you and your "claims" would have been laughed out the fucking door.
In fact, let's have fun with words:
for many people there can never be middle ground
you are either ally or enemy. Black or white.
By saying that Marxism may provide answers you have branded yourself the enemy to the anarchy worshipers.
Just as the intolerant Marxist types brand anarchy as the enemy of socialism.
ret5hd
(22,502 posts)pi?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)religion is a faith based concept. Proof in a scientific sense is not applicable.
Use science and prove to me that a painting is beautiful, or a song sounds pleasing.
Science is based on the provable, faith is not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The music industry relies upon algorithms that predict how likely any member of a particular society will purchase/like any given song.
Even movie scripts.
Modeling your mind to the point your preferences could be perfectly determined at the individual level is simply a matter of investment of effort. It is not impossible. Just prohibitively expensive. But it can certainly determine how likely X members of your social group would purchase a song, you bet.
This article is 4 years old. That's just public research. Rest assured, music production/licensing/labels have been using it, and better equations internally and proprietary, for a long, long time.
http://www.wired.com/2011/12/hit-potential-equation/
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)when targeting ads.
But that does not address my point that faith is not provable, nor does it need to be in the minds of believers. Probably best to just accept that and live together with our differences.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Proof in a scientific sense is not applicable."
It is, to religion, for those religions (not all do) that make claims about being revealed truth about the universe and our place in it.
THOSE, those are open to examination, and proof/disproof. A large number of modern religions do exactly that. (Many, but not all old ones do, but their claims about the universe, and us, are so incongruous with reality, they've all fallen by the wayside already.)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)I actually said proof, not truth.
Proof and faith are not compatible because proof is not necessary for faith to exist. If something is provable faith is not required.
But as to truth, it can be and has been defined as:
1)that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
2)a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
Some people of faith will use version 2 exclusively. But truth has many meanings to many people.
You might find this article about "truth" interesting:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/truth
And we will continue to disagree, but I hope politely. I realize that many people of faith display a high level of intolerance for people who do not share their particular beliefs, but not all of us do. I do not consider my beliefs to be better or superior to others.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."
I want to know what is, or is not, according to that. Everything else is noise to me.
If it turns out a supernatural god ends up being the Truth, per that definition, well... that'll be an interesting day.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)but please read the link for an interesting take on the word truth.
I know that water will boil at 100 degrees at sea level. That is a provable fact.
I know that earth orbits the sun. It was easy to prove before satellites.
If you consider that all else is noise than I would ignore it, if I were you.
But perhaps the noise is music to other ears.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The RCC fought tooth and nail in my state, to keep physician assisted suicide illegal. They spent millions and lied their asses off to smear and distort the issue.
My father finally died the hard way, one year before we finally got that law passed. Could have saved him a lot of suffering.
So, you see, that noise has dire consequences.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)and that situation is why there should be absolute separation of church and state. I do not feel that tax exempt entities should be allowed to engage in political work or advocacy, and that includes 501(c)4 groups as well. Too much possibility for improper behavior.
I would add that the noise "can" have dire consequences. But that noise has also been the motivation and inspiration for Martin Luther King Jr., and the Berrigan brothers, and Dorothy Day, and many pre American Civil War abolitionists as well.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't think that's true. Can you source that claim?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)just research the biological science of emotions, there are books written about it, whole course taught about it. Phd's earned on the subject.
Just cause you don't know something, doesn't mean nobody else does.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
edhopper
(37,367 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)was not the physical biochemical explanation for emotion, but the emotional judgment that a particular thing is beautiful. A response to a song, a response to a poem, or a picture. A better way to say it would be to ask someone to prove that one picture is better than another.
THAT is why I framed it as a response to a song.
edhopper
(37,367 posts)those are human ways to appreciate things. As had been said here, knowing the science behind something, doesn't make the joy disappear.
We can even know why we feel that joy, it's still a good thing.
Unfortunately, this thread was positioned as if understanding the scientific nature of something limited by how awe inspiring it was.
It's just a false dichotomy and in this forum sounds too much like "We don't know, so God".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Individual songs.
There are companies, like Elias Arts, that have monetized sounds as mental 'hooks', like a fishhook in your brain, and there's nothing metaphysical about it. It even lends itself, a s a problem, to analysis by algorithm.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Different cultures are accustomed to different scales and modes, and like us associate particular emotions with them. These associations aren't cross cultural.
Here in the west, we associate the Aeolian mode with sadness. There's no guarantee someone raised on the other side of globe would make the same association.
If this shit was the doing of some divine force, and not socialization, wouldn't it be pretty consistent? Or is this divine force some obstreperous idiot who delights in making things much more complicated than they need be?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Contrast 'All along the watchtower' to 'purple haze'. Very different emotions to the music.
It's all social programming. Repetition, association.
There was a Shakira song produced for the previous to last World Cup, one of two anthems (the other 'Wavin Flag' by Kanaan.) and something struck me as tantalizing and it took me a while to figure out. Freshlyground, a south African band, makes a cameo in the song. Their lead singer is an ESL, and her native tongue doesn't break words on syllables like we do. So "From east, to west", where an English singer might break after 'east' <pause>, 'to west', she breaks right in the middle of the word 'east' itself: 'From ea'<pause>'st to west'. Perfectly natural to her, a jarring 'hook' to me.
And the mode/nuts and bolts of the song itself illustrate your regional comment well, as it hit number one in a number of countries versed in the style that it was crafted in (member countries of Africa and South America), but despite an immensely popular singer in the US, it only hit 38 on our charts. And that's not just because of American apathy to futbol.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Yeah, that's some mystical shit right there, I tell you... about as mystical as adding 2 and 2 and getting 4.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Writing catchy music is as much science as it is art.
Pop music is 4/4 or 6/8 because symmetry is pleasing. We use breaks and fills because variation is pleasing. We write in particular scales because certain clusters of notes, played in relation to each other, are pleasing.
When you hear a recording artist spouting off about the "energy" of writing music--or any such woo--you have to remember he or she is only half of the recording process. Behind them is a highly skilled producer, who reigns in their shit and molds their musical meanderings into salable products.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Audio engineers, producers, etc., are really who make much of modern music. Admittedly that doesn't apply to all music, but it certainly does to almost all of the popular mass-produced stuff.
I always think it's kinda funny when I hear people say that their favorite artist didn't sound as good in concert--it's interesting how few people have even an inkling of the amount of sound processing that goes into most modern music. Even in concert there's usually a ton of processing before the sound hits the audience.
Never got into really learning any of the science behind music design, myself, but I have friends who are very into it. Oddly enough, almost all of them prefer jazz and "strange" music that is often dissonant, because they say that most music out there sounds the same to them. I can definitely understand that. (And I say "strange", because it's really only that we're unfamiliar with it).
The one guilty pleasure I have is house and edm. It's very similar for the most part, but it's the subtle differences between songs and artists that make me happy.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And I can attest personally to the amount of work that goes into that line of work.
Music videos like to focus on the band banging away at their instruments in emotive frenzy... but they never show the producer sitting behind a desk twiddling knobs on a compressor for hours on end or an engineer trying to place mics around a drum kit.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Feel free to PM if you want to.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I haven't been writing too much of my own stuff lately. Mostly, I've been producing for my friends. If I come across something that I think is in good shape, I'll drop it your way.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts) okasha
(11,573 posts)"almost all of the popular, mass-produced stuff" is so bad. Jayzus. The Barbie approach to music.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Reminds me of 'Pachabel' by Rob Paravonian.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)edhopper
(37,367 posts)we don't know the evolutionary origins of music, though there are several interesting theories.
Saying there is not a scientific explanation something doesn't mean that one isn't there to find.
There is also some interesting work on how the brain interacts with music.
If or when we have a full understanding of those things, it won't diminish the joy we feel when we listen, even if we know why we feel joy.
It's a false dichotomy and saying something is beyond understanding is just an argument for ignorance.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the music could be connected to a memory, good or bad, etc. This isn't explainable by science for the simple reason that its subjective, there is no "wrong" way to appreciate a particular piece of music, its suitable to your taste only. Science can describe the emotional response itself, the physical and chemical changes in the brain can be measured. Psychology can ask the person why they think they felt this way about a particular musical piece.
However, there is a needed biological component in order to appreciate music at all, as can be attested by testimony and research into people with amusia, those who are literally tone and/or beat deaf. They can hear the music, but can't distinguish tones, notes or beats that well or at all. Many of them describe music as discordant noise.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)and science can categorize/quantify the range of responses as a way of researching possible responses, but it cannot explain why we respond to beauty. Or our preferences when it comes to art.
And I feel that part of the faith vs. non-faith debate centers around the subjective. So it can never be really won by either side.
Nice response.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and a simple google search comes up with pages.
A lot of it is contested because people like yo want there to be no explanation. And even if they haven't nailed down every last little bit of what's going on they do have a lead worked out, and are still figuring it out.
So no, you are factually wrong there.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Reading the title of the OP was where the issues came in. Sunrises are not greater than science, they actually can be explained by science. Not that it makes them any less awesome. It is unfair to blame the photo for the reactions here.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The thing that science cannot explain isn't the sunrise, it's the emotions that a sunrise can evoke.
How does science explain how a particular visual phenomenon affects us?
A picture of food makes us hungry, I'm sure there's a scientific explanation for that.
But what about art, sunsets, and other emotional responses unrelated to biological need?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)phenomena such as weather, and the availability of food, all directly related to survival.
Is it such a stretch that we could have evolved a particular social fascination with sunrises and sunsets, as we have with reading facial expressions to see if the other person is going to stab us to death with a brick.
I don't happen to have a ready peer-reviewed sociology study to hand you that answers that question to the Nth degree, but I don't see anything about it that renders it forever beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. There's a vast array of tools to measure our response to such things, just needs funding and effort. In fact, it may already have been done, I haven't even looked. Have you?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)but I believe that the answers are there. When you realize how much we have learned about the brain and how it works in our lifetime, and you know that there are so many more mysteries that we have not uncovered, it is truly amazing.
But it is not out of the realm of science, it is just not known yet. In another lifetime, they will have more answers....although I think that we will never have all the answers. At least I hope not, since that would take the fun out of it. I also just enjoy art and sunsets, without thinking about why they invoke the emotional responses that they do in me.
Just don't say that it is beyond science. That will get you the responses you were complaining about.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But I think it's a very safe bet that, as has always been, science will forever make new discoveries and in doing so create new questions that require explanation.
Most people would have taken that as a given, but some were predisposed to react as if I was rejecting science altogether.
Thanks for the reply.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You can believe in metaphysics if you what I guess, but this phrasing is wrong:
"I prefer a world view that takes in everything, science and metaphysics"
You can't take in something that doesn't exist. You fabricate it. It comes from you. Science on the other hand, is something you can pick up a pair of calipers and measure X yourself, and take in the value of X just like anyone else, and come up with the same result.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Air molecules scatter away the shorter wavelengths of light (violet and blue) and the only light which penetrates through the atmosphere are the longer wavelengths of light (yellow, orange and red) which produce colorful sunsets. Scattering affects the color of light coming from the sky, but the details are determined by the wavelength of the light and the size of the particle.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)OK, smartypants-- explain puppy cuteness!
Why do we go into baby talk mode with small animals?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've always considered it bizarre.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Scientists who study the evolution of visual signaling have identified a wide and still expanding assortment of features and behaviors that make something look cute: bright forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait, among many others.
Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth, vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say, and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian sense. As a species whose youngest members are so pathetically helpless they can't lift their heads to suckle without adult supervision, human beings must be wired to respond quickly and gamely to any and all signs of infantile desire.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I mean poopie pants and all?
Most baby animals are cute as can be.
Exceptions include hyenas and many birds!
But even those are kind of cute!!!
okasha
(11,573 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts) AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, a sunset isn't one of them. Science can explain a sunset pretty thoroughly.
...... but I'm glad you are enjoying it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to say that we will, or even can, know everything.
Honestly, I don't really want everything to be science. I like the mysterious.
Beautiful photo.
villager
(26,001 posts)anyone?
I am still trying to incorporate some of those precepts into my fiction writing....
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If what there is is infinite, then the quest to understand will be never ending.
Do you do science fiction writing?
villager
(26,001 posts)Had a traditionally published book series going a few years back.
I've recently started my own digital imprint, and am writing a new novella set in the same storytelling world (now that my original readers are all off to college!)
I'm juggling causality, dimensions, multiverses and timelines as we speak!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't know what a digital imprint is, but glad to know that you are still writing.
villager
(26,001 posts)They allow authors some access to distribution on their own, while traditional publishing continues to flail and look for footing in a changing landscape.
I don't know if "still writing" is a very practical thing. But I guess it keeps me off the streets.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that's what the OP is about. Not everything has to be rational, fact based and scientific.
Thanks for the info on publishing. I haven't bought an actual book in a very long time, but my husband remains very attached to actually holding a book and has not made the transition to ebooks.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)which is why this is all a silly straw man. I know that people like you and SKP have your agenda of trying to legitimize religion and make it seem essential, but it's really rather silly when you try to make that case by trying to argue that science isn't things and can't do things that nobody even claimed.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 2, 2015, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)
https://archive.org/details/aprimerhighersp00braggooghttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004QZ9OPM/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687602&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1145727255&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=040Q29DE85M12EBA6YC8
I'm lucky to have an original 1913 first edition, love the book, love the cover.
villager
(26,001 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Difference is, the rifle works.
bananas
(27,509 posts)and I see Bragdon translated Ouspensky's Tertium Organum to English:
Unbeknown to Ouspensky, a Russian émigré by the name of Nicholas Bessarabof took a copy of Tertium Organum to America and placed it in the hands of the architect Claude Bragdon who could read Russian and was interested in the fourth dimension.[8] Tertium Organum was rendered into English by Bragdon who had incorporated his own design of the hypercube[9][10] into the Rochester Chamber of Commerce building.[11] Bragdon also published the book and the publication was such a success that it was finally taken up by Alfred A. Knopf. At the time, in the early 1920s, Ouspensky's whereabouts were unknown until Bragdon located him in Constantinople and paid him back some royalties.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The headmaster determined that we were 'meditating as a way to get high'. After that I said "fuck it, if we are going to get the boot for doing it right we might as well do it wrong". It was all pot and lsd after that.
bananas
(27,509 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And if science tells me how that sunrise works at the most detailed and fundamental level, does that detract from my appreciation of it?
Depending on how you look at it, a crack in a man-made sidewalk may exhibit equally interesting properties, when you look at how it released strain, how the materials channeled the fracture, what it has exposed underneath, layers in the material, what might be growing and living in it, etc.
Still a sunrise/crack in the sidewalk.
Why does it need some mysterious un-quantifiable dimension? Because it's pretty?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I don't mind trying to reply point by point to your question (and I appreciate that it's not a snarky challenge):
There doesn't need to be, every person may or may not have an experience beyond the obvious one.
And if science tells me how that sunrise works at the most detailed and fundamental level, does that detract from my appreciation of it?
No, not one bit.
Depending on how you look at it, a crack in a man-made sidewalk may exhibit equally interesting properties, when you look at how it released strain, how the materials channeled the fracture, what it has exposed underneath, layers in the material, what might be growing and living in it, etc.
This is most definitely true
Still a sunrise/crack in the sidewalk.
Why does it need some mysterious un-quantifiable dimension? Because it's pretty?
Again, it doesn't. Beauty and mystery are in the eye of the beholder.
If you wish, the sunrise is just a placeholder for any number of other things that might make one wonder about things, it just happens to be very pretty and I wanted to post it because I was sorting through pictures.
And, admittedly, maybe it's one of those "you had to be there" things, like when I was sitting on the sofa and looked up and saw a whale surface out beyond the glass that encloses the balcony. A photo of that would never convey the sense of awe of seeing that animal.
You see, our experience, and our emotions in particular, may have scientific explanations but these often don't really convey the spirit of a thing. I could be the world's top expert in marine mammals and it would not explain the humbling sense of wonder of seeing a whale in your backyard.
I honestly don't know why suggesting that there are more things to our existence than what science has explained is such a horrible or offensive thing.
Why is that? Why can't there be remarkable science AND remarkable non-science phonomena?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)it means inventing a perception that doesn't actually exist.
I know how the solar system is laid out. The relative distances, masses, sizes of the planets, Sol, and many of the larger non-planet masses that orbit the sun. I can model it for you. I can calculate where certain objects will be 50 years into the future, on some specific date and time. All of that is non-subjective.
But to SEE and experience the positions and distances between those objects took a certain morning and a certain sunrise, on a certain fishing boat, with certain identifiable to the naked eye planets in the visible portion of the sky on a clear august morning.
For a moment, I could literally see the plane of the solar system. I felt impossibly small. It was a simultaneously clarifying AND disorienting experience. I imagine, similar to the experience of seeing, with the naked eye, a creature the size of a school bus coming up out of an environment you don't normally see through, and showing itself to you.
I get the wonder, I get the emotions, I get the difference between knowing facts, and experiencing them. I just don't invest any more meaning in the thing. It doesn't change the thing. It doesn't change the universe. It simply colors my subjective interpretation of the thing.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)increases the sense of wonder, increases the depth of the experience.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)I love science. I love art and music. I enjoy the emotions that rise up in the experience of great art and evocative music. I don't really care if science can "explain" them or not. They are beyond science.
Then, a day or a week later, I'm just as likely to be doing a mathematical analysis of Mozart melody lines trying to coax out what equations best describe beauty in music. Then I am convinced that science can explain beauty, and that I can program a computer to create beauty.
So speaking from Phase II (where I happen to reside at the moment) "compassion" has a very significant positive survival value for the tribe/community, and therefore, for the species. That we feel it is the result of those who didn't feel it not surviving.
So I'm ambivalent. That's part of being human. I embrace my fundamental nature and let it go at that. And when the science becomes too tedious, I let myself be swept away by Beethoven.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And even as a child I questioned my mom's motives for being a member of Altrusa, and I concluded that there are no fully altruistic acts; that they serve other motives.
But then someone like Eva Haller comes along. I met her in February and had a chance to chat one on one with her.
She joined the Hungarian resistance in 1940 at age 12, eventually came here, is a powerhouse of inspiration and charitable work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Haller
And I end up feeling like science is way too limited to explain everything that's out there. That doesn't mean that religion, then, does. There's nothing in my OP about religion being the answer, but some of my critics would like to think so.
There are things that neither science nor faith can explain, and I celebrate these things!
okasha
(11,573 posts)That tends to make people who have a low tolerance for uncertainty--especially authoritarians and other rigid thinkers--uncomfortable.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Or at least I think I do. Some days I'm not sure.
edhopper
(37,367 posts)for those very things.
You have a mistaken idea about the aesthetics of people who accept scientific explanations and shun "other ways of knowing" bullshit.
We can feel as much awe and grandeur as any believer without the need of a hidden, irrational, supernatural part of the Universe.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)If anything, I was just suggesting that science may be inadequate to explain all of the wonders that we are so lucky experience.
Look, I just survived the fourth head surgery in which the hole in my skull the size of a tennis ball was filled with a piece of polyethlyethylketone.
They were wrapping up at just about this time yesterday.
So I'm feeling some miracles today, the miracle of modern medicine and science and the joy of surviving an aneurism, infection, septic skull infection, and restorative cranioplasty.
It's good to be back!
I'll give you slack for all that.
Science can explain the mechanics of all the wonders we see. that doesn't mean we just stop and say "oh that's how it works" and move on.
We can just experience them and enjoy them. Knowing about them may even enrich the experience.
I saw a green flash sunset last year, knowing the scientific optics around it did not negate the pure coolness of seeing it.
I don't think you needed to bring science into your OP.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)The real is directly, indirectly, or at least hypothetically, observable. The metaphysical, or supernatural, are indistinguishable from the make believe.
--imm
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The mind is a fascinating thing, and so complex that it cannot but be destined for constant exploration and study.
But those things that presently defy scientific explanation are often the most awe inspiring.
Some of the replies seem to think that I'm talking about the sunset as the magical thing but thankfully others seem to "get it" that it's there to represent the emotions we feel with certain things, like beauty.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)The things about conditions we most associate with beauty are those that are most conducive to life. Blue skies, green trees, pretty flowers, healthy animals, etc. And those most associated with death, are seen as ugly, less attractive, like gloom, decadence, putrescence.
Generally speaking we see beauty in things that are good for us.
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)diets of munching on fruits lead to the development of trichromatic vision, without which, we wouldn't be able to see and distinguish between all the colors we appreciate now in awesome sunrises.
Aesthetics does seem to have some universal components, and green grass, blue skies, red apples, etc. would indicate, as you said, a healthy biome, at least to a certain extent, and therefore it is the most pretty to most of us. Same goes for how we view others in our species, we find those who are most symmetrical the most attractive, babies, of many species, are considered extremely cute, with large eyes, etc. All of these things would aid any highly social species such as us in surviving.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)No matter how many brain scans you stare at, you can't access the subjective experience related to what you are seeing. When people notice their subjective perceptions, as they do when those perceptions are very powerful (the examples you gave), they start to wonder how their physical brains are related to those perceptions.
The complication is that brains are made of matter and energy. Matter and energy are not commonly thought to have subjective perceptions. So how does subjective experience arise when non-subjective matter and energy are arranged a particular way? Questions like that are what then lead some to the speculation that matter/energy are not all there is to existence, particularly to the existence of subjective awareness.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I wish I could be as articulate.
On an episode of NPR's RadioLab, this question arose" if all the atoms of your body were perfectly duplicated into a second living identical body down to the very last detail, would that second body share none, some, or all of your consciousness?
Indeed, there is more going on than can be explained by science alone.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Babies, well I learned how they were made in Middle school, to much giggling from me and classmates. Compassion is a behavioral trait that we inherited from our ancestors, having been selected for in our species because it helps increase our survival, helps us get along with each other in groups.
Also, I can't see the picture, the link or something is broken, but atmospheric phenomenon and how they interact with the sun are quite well known, by science.
Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean others don't know, or that it can't be examined. Neither does knowing diminish the beauty we find there.
Jim__
(15,222 posts)... you should be able to see it. At least that works for me.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)That was the nicest sunrise I think I've ever watched.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Science can only guess how that works.
And magnets.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the question is what areas of the brain our involved in imagination. Not sure what else you need.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You conclude that because the imagination involves thoughts it must be brain-based.
Fine, so we think we know where it happens but how about "how" it happens, and "why"?
That it's a product of our brains is a little like saying Magnets work because they attract one another.
There's nothing wrong with admitting that science can only explain a limited number of phenomena.
What it does explain it does fairly well, but by no means is it able to explain everything, or even most things.
Of course, that all depends upon the list of things people wish to use of "things that might have an explanation".
So, what is the science behind feeling particularly moved by an awesome sunrise?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Well, this can give you a starter:
Granted, this is, at best, an intro into neurobiology, but I'm not a neurologist, I would suggest looking up some books and research on the subject.
Now, as far as what you seem to think of as the limitations of science, uhm, science is the only way we know to explain things, indeed, the process of science is the only known accurate way to obtain knowledge about the universe. That's why it works.
You are confusing aesthetics with knowledge, science is knowledge, subjective feelings are just that, subjective feelings, science can explain the hows and even some of the whys involved, but the rest of it is subjective, so outside scientific examination.
The limits of science are that it is only useful in examining things that are falsifiable, that can be tested and possibly found untrue. I would say that most phenomena are falsifiable, so can be tested by science. This is also why, as stated above, science has little involvement with subjective experiences.
As far as the science behind the feelings you have for an awesome sunrise, well, lots of serotonin, and I'm sure other neurotransmitters are involved, again, I'm not a neurologist.
ON EDIT: OK, so I found this video summarizing many scientific discoveries, one of which is explaining euphoria.
Also, to put things in perspective, science not only informs, but inspires, examples here:
Please bear in mind that I have been raised by people who have suffered disorders of the brain and mind all my life, the evidence for the materialistic basis of our thoughts, feelings and personality were all too clear, and thankfully, largely treatable. Bi-polar disorder, OCD, ADHD, etc. and in many cases, it was the help of drugs that leveled out the neurotransmitters that allowed many of these people to function and have happy, fulfilling lives.
You would have us stop researching the brain because of some irrational belief you have in some non-material basis for our thoughts or feelings. I'm sorry but that is just wrong.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)No, I have never suggested that we should research less or anything like it.
This is the problem with detractors, they take a stated opinion about a thing and then attribute claims or characteristics to me that simply aren't there because they presume if I say anything negative about science I must be like some other person they know of who flat out rejected science.
We agree on more than you might realize.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Indeed, there is more going on than can be explained by science alone."
"there are great things well beyond science. "
"The best stuff can't be explained by science."
"And I end up feeling like science is way too limited to explain everything that's out there."
That's slamming a door. Discounting the very idea of further inquiry, in favor of some other path you think you have found. So you did say 'stop researching'. You've declared it a waste of time. Put understanding beyond the reach of science. Insisted upon it, in fact.
So, perhaps you don't realize what you are saying, but you are not correcting HA by saying you didn't suggest it. You did. Maybe you didn't mean to suggest that, I suppose.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)limitations that don't even exist and are current areas of study, by the way.
Especially when it comes to consciousness, you seem afraid that science will remove the "mystery" associated with it, I will say it will be a good long while before the research can tell us everything possible about the brain and how it functions, so technically you are safe there.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The more we learn the more questions we have.
My singular premise is that, even on it's best day, science is at a loss to explain certain things.
And that's OK. In fact, I think it's a wonderful thing.
The accusations in this thread of my spreading RWTPs etc., are just amazing.
Poll 100 scientists and I'll be they'll all agree that there are a great many phenomena that defy scientific explanation.
I don't know what's so hard to accept about that observation.
But it's sure entertaining to watch how people seem to need to challenge it.
Ah well.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)supernatural or subjective?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)"Defy a scientific explanation" is more to the point.
Among these, consciousness and imagination are two...
But in fairness to physical science, these fall into different scientific domains from, say, magnets.
What is so bad about the fact that there are things not yet explained by science?
What the heck is wrong with stating that fact?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Not having a complete picture, and being able to examine and possibly come up with explanations for those two things is precisely my point.
If you are stating a fact, you are doing it in a way to that purposely muddies the waters and makes your point too vague.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Magnetic fields can be used to manipulate thought. You can even render someone incapable of lying, or incapable of telling the truth.
http://www.science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/09/1333230/
We know why magnets work too, we fabricate them all the time, that 'how do they fucking work' meme was an Insane Clown Posse 'ignorance of the lead singer' thing.
"What it does explain it does fairly well, but by no means is it able to explain everything, or even most things."
What sort of 'things'?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...and that you don't seriously believe those words you just typed.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Don't know if it's true though
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Dust from volcanic eruptions can influence sunsets for years.
Pollution can do it too, but humans barely rival mother nature in this regard.
http://www.livescience.com/2834-volcano-eruption-colors-world-sunsets.html
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...because science has no way to explain babies, or compassion, or sunrises...
Babies pop out, babies grow up. You can't explain that!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Meaning they can explain sperm and eggs and cell-division, because these are all within their narrow scope.
But science cannot explain how or when individual consciousness initiates, or what becomes of it when our bodies pass.
IOW, Science is great, but it's not everything!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. It emerges as the brain develops. It dies when the brain dies.
Science has answers. You just don't like them.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Maybe if you repeat it often enough it will come true.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It can even be tampered with deliberately. We can even tease out IMAGES of what the brain 'sees' so, basically you have no knowledge of this field of science at all. It wont be long and traditional eye exams will go away in favor of measuring for corrective lenses by actually seeing what the brain sees of a known image, and crafting a lense prescription to counter it. Double bonus since researchers have found a way to correct actual colorblindness with such lenses.
And you presume to claim what science CANNOT see/measure/ understand. This seems like willful ignorance.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The adherence to a POV that science is absolutely all-powerful is a form of zealotry.
Naturally, with time science understands things better and better, although there are missteps.
But science will never and can not ever, know and explain everything.
That doesn't mean religion can, nothing in my OP or replies even mentions religion as some replacement or superior explanation provider.
Some of the replies seem to suggest that members assume that I'm suggesting religion does that.
But I'm not.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So I don't know why you keep protesting about it. I don't care what substitute thing you think you can use, even if it's some third category beyond Science and Religion. Uninteresting.
I'm concerned about a positive claim you keep making, and backing up with wildly wrong examples:
"But science will never and can not ever, know and explain everything."
That's a positive claim, and literally every piece of evidence I've seen you offer suggesting to back that claim up, has been shredded, years ago. And I'm ignoring the colloquialism you're using there, that science 'understands' anything at all. It doesn't. Humans and other intelligences can, utilizing science as a methodology tool. Processes are (or can be) used to achieve an understanding, the process itself doesn't 'understand' anything because it is not an intelligence itself.
But I chose to ignore that in favor of what you seem to be saying; that there are some aspects of reality that science will never enable us to understand. Do you agree with that paraphrase?
If so, then proceed to support it, because so far every example you've offered is already outdated and wrong.
Characterizing my reliance upon science/reason as 'zealotry' is unhelpful. You've yet to demonstrate any negative connotation whatsoever to such reliance. I can appreciate reality, so far as I can tell, just like you do. You've described nothing about your perception of amazing stimuli in any terms I don't understand/have not experienced. In fact, I have an under-reactive personality, it takes precisely that sort of huge stimuli to capture my attention whatsoever. Strong smells, big noises, overpowering flavors, etc. I have studied and reflected a great deal upon my powers of perception to understand myself better. What you described for various experiences, such as that sunset, does not differ from how I feel with similar stimuli.
But I have a deep underlying need to understand it. Sunsets and sunrises are well understood as a real, physical phenomena that can be measured, predicted, modeled mathematically, etc. What's going on in the software/wetware of our brains is pretty well understood too. Some aspects we don't fully grok yet, but I see no reason whatsoever to validate your claim that it is beyond our ability to discover using the scientific method as we understand it.
That is a bold-assed claim right there. I'd like to see you support it.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I probably would have pointed out that every single one of his protestations appeared to have been ripped straight from the mouths of evolution deniers. And this guy...
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If consciousness were independent of the physical brain, then no damage to the physical brain could alter consciousness.
Everything we know about brain trauma suggests consciousness, behavior, and personality are all products of the physical brain.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Theories are the pinnacle of scientific understanding.
Gravity? Theory. That doesn't mean we're not sure about that gravity thing. That means we have an extremely solid and well supported framework that explains the gravitational phenomenon, which is in agreement with ALL observational data and test results.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)... like gravity, evolution, and germs.
haikugal
(6,476 posts) 
ananda
(35,140 posts)None of those things go beyond science in any way.
They can be appreciated without science, though.
Science is a wonderful thing in so many respects.
All belief systems and other aspects of life can be
reconciled with science.
I never like to see an all or nothing dichotomy devised
between science and other views of life. This creates
so many totally unnecessary problems and causes untold
harm and death.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)My observation is that it's OK that science can't presently explain things.
And I agree that science isn't needed to appreciate a great many things.
Science wouldn't be very interesting if everything was known and understood.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Whut?
Please elaborate.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)"Science wouldn't be very interesting if everything was known and understood."
If everything was known and understood, there would be little about which to be curious.
The need for research and study would largely evaporate.
Scientists might be out of work, and some of them have children.
Think of the children, and let the scientists go on trying to answer the questions that haven't been answered.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I know everything there is to know about my Kawasaki KLR 650. This doesn't rob me of my need to, or enjoyment of, working on it. Improving it, repairing it, etc.
Knowing everything, and understanding everything gives you options. So you've got all the data, and the knowhow, now do something with it.
Knowing robs me of no wonder, inquiry, or enjoyment from the thing I know a lot about.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You're attacking those who question your statement though, with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 3, 2015, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)
I could have used a different title to make the same point.
"Sometimes the unknown is really cool to think about"
And I think that a great many scientists would agree.
I attacked nobody and have only needed to reply with clarifications and examples, most of which were met with disapproval and insult.
But I ain't trippin', I know I'm on rock solid ground here.
Science can't explain it all, and that's a good thing.
(It doesn't mean I think that religion can explain things, that's something others bring into the dialogue)
It's a fair topic for this group, however, since many religious myths exist, at least in part, to explain phenomenon we didn't at the time understand scientifically.
Now that seems to me to be something that everyone would agree upon.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But you are far from innocent in these exchanges. I think a lot of hostility against you comes from the Charlie Hebdo threads where you were consistent in implying that those who were murdered brought it upon themselves by publishing offensive cartoons. Lots of people have a tough time letting that disgusting position go.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Old grievances die hard. I don't harbor any ill will and I understand that just because I don't doesn't mean others won't.