Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 20:32:46
In reply to Re: quick thought... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 15:09:59
Science isn’t authoritative on everything. But it is authoritative on a limited domain. Some examples of things that fall outside the domain of science are consciousness, ethics, aesthetics, meaning, god. Science is silent on those things. Occasionally we have the illusion of progress – but the illusion only works because they redefine (operationalize) the terms in a way that is amenable to scientific investigation.
Eg. We define consciousness as activation of neurons x.
Neurons x were found to fire in certain people who were in a coma.
Our research showed that certain people in coma are conscious.But consciousness is more than just neurons x in the same way that intelligence is more than just ones mensa or binet score
Consciousness can’t be identified with any brain state (though there may be correlations). This is because conscious states are *essentially* subjective whereas brain states are *essentially* objective (or inter-subjective). They thus have different essential properties and cannot be the same thing. There can’t be a science of consciousness. Though there can be a science of the correlates of consciousness. Though there is always the problem of ‘how do we know others are conscious anyways’ – which casts doubt on the correlation.Science requires inter-subjectivity. What is crucial is that different observers can observe the same phenomena. That experimental results should be repeatable. You can’t have a science of something that is essentially subjective. That wouldn’t work. There are methods for studying subjectivity but they are philosophical methods and not scientific methods. There can never be a science of consciousness. (Unless you change the meaning of ‘science’ so there can be a ‘science’ of subjectivity – see, for example "The conscious mind". Or unless you change the meaning of ‘consciousness’ so that it is not essentially subjective – see, for example "Consciousness explained").
With respect to god there is no evidence that could support the claim that ‘god exists’. There is also no evidence that could refute the claim that ‘god exists’. It is also not a matter of reason (unless you try to show that the very concept is incoherent – which is not a scientific enterprise it is a philosophical one). It is typically thought that religious claims are a matter of faith. It is also often considered that religious utterances should not be interpreted as making claims about reality. There are other things we can use language to try and do…
But if we are interested in the inter-subjective world (aka reality) then science is the best we have got. The evidence for that is progress and applications such as computers, the atomic bomb, and rockets to the moon.
Science can tell is what is or was the case. But it cannot tell us what we *should* do. Ethics is also beyond the scope of science. You can have a science of describing the different ethical systems of different people. But you can’t tell people which ethical system they *should* adopt. You can point out the inconsistencies and incoherencies in systems or worry about just how much they really do differ at the end of the day - but that is an analytic (philosophical) matter.
So there are limits on science…
It is unlikely that consciousness, ethics and co will ever be able to be sciences.
But progress is being made…
The ‘social sciences’ are flourishing with their fairly recently developed methods…When we are talking about reality it can be helpful to consider…
Suppose everything that is conscious disappeared off the face of the universe. What would be left? Would there still be trees and buildings?
If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it – then does it make a sound?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:455724
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050205/msgs/456071.html