[gareth]

Hi I'm a new member with a background in the arts and a keen interest in science. I find science fascinating, but sometimes think it weakens itself by its point-blank refusal to accept meaningful truths that stretch beyond the limits of science.

A case in point is infinity.

If you look at poetry, art and religion, you will find so many beautiful descriptions of the eternal and the inifinte. Science, on the other hand, really seems to struggle with this concept, and any explanations are either too boring or confused to merit reading. Don't forget, science is the limitation of man's understanding, so scientific discussion tends to remain within what is essentially the limitations of man's understanding.

Before you make any assumptions about me, I do think that evolution is the most beautiful and artistic scientific theory I have heard (it requires great imagination), but I do think Richard Dawkins is a bit of a berk at the same time.

Anyway, that's my intro.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by gareth

Hi I'm a new member with a background in the arts and a keen interest in science. I find science fascinating, but sometimes think it weakens itself by its point-blank refusal to accept meaningful truths that stretch beyond the limits of science.

Hi gareth...glad you joined us.

I agree there are questions that empirical methods of science can't address, hence the need for philosophers and poets. But if these "truths" you refer to are beyond the limits of science, how can we judge them to be true?

[gareth]

Overdog - I think an empirical science approach discourages imagination, and imagination is surely the most important driver of scientific discovery. To me, imagination means believing in things that have not been proven by empirical science to be true. In fact, you could argue that empirical science fosters dogmas in much the same way as religion.

As I understand it, a fundamental aspect of science is that nothing is 100% true (my science friends tell me you can never prove something with 100% certainty), which to me suggests that nothing is actually 'true'.

You cannot, for example, scientifically prove the existence of karma, but from my experience, it just seems a lot 'truer' and more meaningful than many scientific discoveries.

However, I am sure there are scientific theories that would be in harmony with the concept of karma. The only problem is, if you published a paper on the subject, I am sure you would be sneered at by 'respectable' scientists, precisely because of the blinkered approach that empirical science engenders.

[Overdog]

Oh. I just realized this is the Introductions Forum...

Well, I'll hold off responding to that here.

Again, Welcome!

Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread for this discussion in the Philosopy and Humanities section?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by gareth

Don't forget, science is the limitation of man's understanding, so scientific discussion tends to remain within what is essentially the limitations of man's understanding.

Science is the collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline; the pursuit and study of physical and material knowledge, particularly in a systematic and organized manner.

I personally have no trouble with the concept of infinity.

[gareth]

Hi Clay - thanks for responding to my post.

If you have no trouble understanding the concept of infinity, could you please explain* it to me (i.e. what it means to you PERSONALLY - not the dictionary definition).

*you're not allowed to use Greek letters, formulae or very complicated word.

[gareth]

Please don't think I'm being impudent, but I had to smile when I read 'particularly in a systematic and organized manner'.

Penicillen anyone?

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by gareth

...As I understand it, a fundamental aspect of science is that nothing is 100% true (my science friends tell me you can never prove something with 100% certainty), which to me suggests that nothing is actually 'true'...

Perhaps then you'd like to replace your use of the word "truths" in your original post, with the word "beliefs"?

I find science fascinating, but sometimes think it weakens itself by its point-blank refusal to accept meaningful beliefs that stretch beyond the limits of science.

[gareth]

If a belief is believable enough to a sufficient number of people, then surely it becomes a 'truth'?

Anyway, if what my science friends tell me is true (nothing in science can be proved with 100% certainty), then surely all truths in science are in fact just beliefs anyway (albeit very believable beliefs).

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by gareth

If a belief is believable enough to a sufficient number of people, then surely it becomes a 'truth'?

I wouldn't say that. Believing in the Easter Bunny doesn't make it true.

Anyway, if what my science friends tell me is true (nothing in science can be proved with 100% certainty), then surely all truths in science are in fact just beliefs anyway (albeit very believable beliefs).

Yes, the distinction between belief in something like "karma" and a scientific theory, is that one is verifiable and falsifiable through empirical methods, and the other is not.