What are the questions science can't answer?

[needimprovement]

Let me start with my own response:

 

1) Values--what is good, what is beautiful. Science will never be able to tell us that the Brandenburg Concerto #3 is better than the Symphony Fantastique, or to go to the ridiculuous, dirty rap songs;

 

2) Science can not answer why questions, particularly why science works, or in the words of Eugene Wigner, explain "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences";

 

3) There are other mysteries within the scientific project--to mention just one, quantum non-locality, which the French physicist/philosopher, Bernard D'Espagnat, is a manifestation of the veiled face of reality;

 

4) science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the mysteries of the Christian faith-the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Real Presence.

 

 

What are your thoughts?

[Ringer]

1.) Psychology has made headway into why we have the values we do and what sounds, colors, landscapes, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(personal_and_cultural)

 

2.) Science works because it bases everything on empirical evidence. I did a little search on the quote and from what I understand it's just based on the fact that our perception is flawed and we can't conceive everything that science explains

 

3.) Science works to explain the mysteries you mean. Just because it doesn't have answers now doesn't mean it never will.

 

4.) Science works to explain the universe and make predictions based on testable outcomes. It's used to understand what, how, why, etc. God in the Christian sense is a higher power that can never be understood or the idea of him even conceived. So in Christian's own definition it's pointless for science to try to test, or even care, if there is a god.

 

 

This is my opinion.

 

[AzurePhoenix]

hmmm... probably, seeing any stuff going on beyond the cosmic horizon... or what might have been before the Big Bang if anything, or "outside" the universe if any form of multiverse/omniverse exists. What's going on in a black hole. Though I'd wager models can give pretty good ideas about these things, even if they can't be proven. But especially, exactly what's going on in a chinchilla's head while he's intently watching Darth Maul fight Obi Wan and Qui Gon on the tv.

 

1) Values--what is good, what is beautiful. Science will never be able to tell us that the Brandenburg Concerto #3 is better than the Symphony Fantastique, or to go to the ridiculuous, dirty rap songs;

ethology and various forms of psychology and neurology can pretty much explain such things.

 

2) Science can not answer why questions, particularly why science works, or in the words of Eugene Wigner, explain "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences";

we kind've have a few ideas on why we use the empirical method to figure stuff out rather than say... shake a Magic Q Ball.

 

3) There are other mysteries within the scientific project--to mention just one, quantum non-locality, which the French physicist/philosopher, Bernard D'Espagnat, is a manifestation of the veiled face of reality;

Like Ringer says, mysteries aren't the same as not being able to to answer something. There's quite a bit that we don't know about Great White Shark reproduction, doesn't mean we can never find out.

 

4) science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the mysteries of the Christian faith-the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Real Presence.

For god specifically, different science-types will offer different viewpoints on that, and it strongly depends on how "God" is defined, but as for the things listed after (except the trinity bit, which is part of some variations of the God part), science plus history can strongly suggest what might have or probably didn't happen / what's a myth. With good confidence. Edited August 11, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[needimprovement]

ethology and various forms of psychology and neurology can pretty much explain such things.

Amazing!! I'd be very pleased if you could give me a specific journal or book reference that shows how "ethology" (whatever that might be) or psychology or neurology can show that the Symphony Fantastique is better than the Tocatta and Fugue in D minor or rap.

 

we kind've have a few ideas on why we use the empirical method to figure stuff out rather than say... shake a Magic Q Ball.

Sorry but I don't really understand what you're saying here. What is a "magic q ball"? I assume that you know about Eugene Wigner and what he did in Science and Mathematics. Please confirm.

 

Like Ringer says, mysteries aren't the same as not being able to answer something. There's quite a bit that we don't know about Great White Shark reproduction, doesn't mean we can never find out.

I'm not sure how not knowing about the reproduction of any species relates to my comment. I assume that you know anything about quantum mechanics and its mysteries--quantum non-locality for example. Please confirm.

Edited August 12, 2010 by needimprovement

[AzurePhoenix]

Amazing!! I'd be very pleased if you could give me a specific journal or book reference that shows how "ethology" (whatever that might be) or psychology or neurology can show that the Symphony Fantastique is better than the Tocatta and Fugue in D minor or rap.

obviously neither is objectively better than the other in any fundamental sense. However, any book on behaviorism or developmental psychology can help you understand the factors that go into shaping an individual's personally subjective preferences. Psychology can explain why YOU like Fantastique, vs why I like Nightwish.

 

Sorry but I don't really understand what you're saying here. What is a "magic q ball"? I assume that you know about Eugene Wigner and what he did in Science and Mathematics. Please confirm.

Sketchily put, science is based on methods that formulate hypothesis and questions based on observations, and through, ideally, objectively performed and rigorously repeated tests form conclusions based on consistent results. That is why it works. No mystery. A Magic Q Ball is a toy you shake that randomly answers your questions with "yes," or "no," or "maybe" and such. It should be obvious to anyone willing to think about it why the empirical method is a better way to obtain understanding of our universe than asking a ball with a di inside of it. All I know about Wigner is he was a physicist. Maybe you can explain to me what some of his ideas were, and specifically, what he indicates we can never learn and why?

 

I'm not sure how not knowing about the reproduction of any species relates to my comment. I assume that you know anything about quantum mechanics and its mysteries--quantum non-locality for example. Please confirm.

What I know about non-locality is how it relates to quantum entanglement. Particles linked to one-another and influence one another instantaneously no matter how far away. The point is, aspects of it contribute to a continuing mystery. Same with the shark deal. What specifically about a particular mystery renders it beyond understanding forever?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's also the entire field of psychoacoustics, which seeks to understand why some combinations of sounds are pleasing and some aren't.

[needimprovement]

2.) Science works because it bases everything on empirical evidence. I did a little search on the quote and from what I understand it's just based on the fact that our perception is flawed and we can't conceive everything that science explains

The topic is not whether science works but what are its limitations - one of which is its inability to explain itself (which is hardly surprising!)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I suggest the book The Logic of Scientific Discovery for the philosophy of how science works.

[needimprovement]

I suggest the book The Logic of Scientific Discovery for the philosophy of how science works.

Thank you for the book recommendation. I'll try to illustrate the different divisions of Philosophy and how none of them "make" anything:

 

Metaphysics is the study of things that are beyond the physical .

Ontology is the study of Being.

Epistemology is studying knowledge.

Ethics is the study of Morality.

Logic is the study of arguments.

Aesthetics is the study of beauty.

Politics is the study of governance and individuals within societies.

Philosophies of Mind deal with the relation of mind and body.

Philosophies of Religion ask questions about religion.

Philosophies of Language ask questions about the origin and use of language.

 

None of these "Make" anything; but it would be foolish to say all (or even some) of them are bad.

 

Modern scientific method is a practical consequence of Empiricism from the Philosophy Epistemology; Realism from the Philosophy of Metaphysics and Induction from the Philosophy of Logic.

 

Philosophy isn't to do with making something; it is to do with understanding the nature of reality - the products of philosophy can be seen in Politics (Democracy), Science (Scientific Method), Mind (Psychology), Language (Linguistics), Ethics (Human Rights; Just War) and many other things...

 

To say something has to actually produce something material to be effective is silly. Mathematics does not "produce" anything; but it is still useful. Likewise; philosophy producing logic and epistimological systems for understanding the world allows and opens up possibilities for the practical application of theory. There could be no practical applications if there were no theories to apply.

 

 

-----

AzurePhoenix - I will post my thoughts later in response to your recent post. I'm pretty busy the next few days, but will get back to you sooner or later.

Edited August 12, 2010 by needimprovement

[Ringer]

The topic is not whether science works but what are its limitations - one of which is its inability to explain itself (which is hardly surprising!)

 

I was just commenting on the quote and that science works because it is just practice based on evidence. You said it can't explain itself, maybe I just misunderstand what you mean, but it is self-explanatory for the fact that is just a practice.

 

On second thought, maybe you were talking about the fact that pure mathematics can't prove itself consistent. Or as Andre Weil said, "God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it."

[needimprovement]

4.) Science works to explain the universe and make predictions based on testable outcomes. It's used to understand what, how, why, etc. God in the Christian sense is a higher power that can never be understood or the idea of him even conceived. So in Christian's own definition it's pointless for science to try to test, or even care, if there is a god.

Science cannot explain why reason exists, or why humans are the only "animals" which have a highly developed reason. No other animal even comes close, even though (so we are told) that the great apes and homo sapiens share about 98% of the genetic code (as I recall).

 

IMO, even the fact that we can and do think about ourselves and our place in the universe is a kind of proof that we are unique in the world. Why isn't there another ____-sapiens running around? There seems to be evidence that there were several other species at one time.

 

Science is science -- it is necessary to "believe" that science can tell us verifiable truths about the physical universe, but it takes a sense of wonder about it, the spirit of curiosity/discovery which makes us humans strive to figure out all that there is to possibly know about us.

 

Science (and scientific research) must be ethical, but cannot (and probably should not) be the sole arbiter and definer of ethics.

 

Fire away - I'm just a musician, but am curious about this question, esp. how anti-religionists and atheists deal with these things.

[padren]

Science cannot answer any question the questioner does not understand.

 

I think that seems to sum up the immediate limitations.

Edited August 16, 2010 by padren

[Ringer]

Science cannot explain why reason exists, or why humans are the only "animals" which have a highly developed reason. No other animal even comes close, even though (so we are told) that the great apes and homo sapiens share about 98% of the genetic code (as I recall).

 

IMO, even the fact that we can and do think about ourselves and our place in the universe is a kind of proof that we are unique in the world. Why isn't there another ____-sapiens running around? There seems to be evidence that there were several other species at one time.

 

Science is science -- it is necessary to "believe" that science can tell us verifiable truths about the physical universe, but it takes a sense of wonder about it, the spirit of curiosity/discovery which makes us humans strive to figure out all that there is to possibly know about us.

 

similarity in action and survival based on how many genes match up with other animals is pretty pointless. We share 50% of our genetic code with bananas as well, why don't they have half the intelligence we do. Genetics are good markers for speciation and things like that, but genes are extremely hard to say what exactly certain ones do at any given time for the most part.

 

To an extent all pack animals that have a certain hierarchy think about their "place in the universe" to an extent. As to why we don't have closer relations than the chimps, we have been very close to extinction in the past and it's no real surprise that our close relatives didn't make it through those bottlenecks.

 

science is a method, you don't have to believe science works for it to work. The predictions made could be wrong, but that's why they're tested. There are leaps of faith at times when it comes to scientific hypotheses, but that's only so make sense of certain subject matter and again must be falsifiable. Saying science only works because we believe it works is like saying magnets wouldn't work if we stopped thinking they would

 

 

 

[Sisyphus]

Science is limited to questions that have answers with observable consequences.

 

For example, whether the "many worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics is true is not a scientific question, because it has no observable consequences.

 

However, several of the examples needimprovement gives are in fact, scientific questions, if poorly posed ones. For example, why is music A better than music B? That question has unstated and flawed premises. What we actually experience is not music A being better than music B, but preferring music A to music B. Why you prefer A to B is very much a scientific question.

 

And certainly "where does reason come from" is a scientific question.

 

Also:

 

esp. how anti-religionists and atheists deal with these things.

 

The only difference in how an atheist would deal with such things, is that "because it says so in this particular book" would not be considered a valid answer.

[AzurePhoenix]

Science cannot explain why reason exists, or why humans are the only "animals" which have a highly developed reason. No other animal even comes close, even though (so we are told) that the great apes and homo sapiens share about 98% of the genetic code (as I recall).

Plenty of animals, avian and mammalian have highly developed reasoning abilities. Ravens, parrots, elephants, the great apes, dolphins. In additon to many other clever techniques and examples of tool-use, Ravens are able to figure out that dropping pebbles in water will raise the water level to lift something they want that happens to be in the water within their reach. Keas (parrots) in New Zealand do better at opening locks if they're allowed to examine them beforehand and reaosn out how to do so. Alex the African Grey Parrot could differentiate different forms of matter, plastic, wood, metal, etc, could deliberately avoid correct answers when he was bored of testing, and even made up a new name for an unidentified fruit based on the characteristics of fruits he WAS familiar with (he named apples Banerries because they looked like cherries and tasted sortve like banana.) Prairies Dogs seem to have an actual language (it just needs to be determined whether or not that they learn it).

 

As for reason itself, evolutionary theory, ethology, game-theory, etc etc, go a long way to explain the gradual development of more obvious forms of intelligence. Why does it exist? Why does the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism exist? Because it's useful and evolution CAN create it and everything lined up well enough for it to eventually though by no means inevitably happen.

 

IMO, even the fact that we can and do think about ourselves and our place in the universe is a kind of proof that we are unique in the world. Why isn't there another ____-sapiens running around? There seems to be evidence that there were several other species at one time.

We've created a very particular niche for ourselves in the world. I would suggest that evolving into what we've become was a risky gambit that more often than not ends in failure and extinction. We just hit the jackpot where so many of our non-sapiens human kin either were too specialized, were out-competed by us, or just weren't as lucky. Get rid of us, and give it a few million years, I say it's perfectly possible that any of the species I've mentioned, or others, could follow in our footsteps and replace us as Loxodonta sapiens or Corvus sapiens or what have you. Or maybe not.

 

Science is science -- it is necessary to "believe" that science can tell us verifiable truths about the physical universe, but it takes a sense of wonder about it, the spirit of curiosity/discovery which makes us humans strive to figure out all that there is to possibly know about us.

I still don't understand what you're suggesting be used in place of objective analysis. Just randomly make up crap that appeals to subjective desires? That can't verify crap. While those who use science are driven by curiosity and often a sense of wonder. We just try not to let it blind us to the truth. Which opens up whole new wonders. It seems to me that if anything, you have closed yourself to the possibility of understanding, in fear of what personal, feeble hopes of yours the truth might dash. Edited August 16, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[Moontanman]

In theory there are no questions science can not answer

[PhDwannabe]

Science is limited to questions that have answers with observable consequences.

 

With a heavy sigh, I'll go one further and note that, in my unfortunate realm of the social sciences, we are limited to questions that have answers with not only observable, but operationalizable consequences. The need to define a criterion variable is a nastier problem in some quarters of science than others.

 

 

 

Speaking to another issue, what are people's opinions on the necessity of being able to immediately and repeatably test something in the present to consider a method "scientific?" For want of a good flux capacitor, we can't perform controlled experiments on the demography of the Middle Atlantic states in the 18th century. Do you think we can nonetheless study the topic with the methods of what some historians call historical science? Phrased more closely to the original question of the thread, can I answer some or any historical questions with science?

 

Thank the gods history was only my undergrad minor, and I thus have little emotional investment in the answers. Whew!

[needimprovement]

obviously neither is objectively better than the other in any fundamental sense. However, any book on behaviorism or developmental psychology can help you understand the factors that go into shaping an individual's personally subjective preferences. Psychology can explain why YOU like Fantastique, vs why I like Nightwish.

I don't believe behaviorism or developmental psychology can explain "qualia", categories of what's it's like or what one's values are. Functional MRI may show areas of the brain that are active when you hear or see something you like, but that isn't an explanation. Let me give an example (not mine, but from a philosopher of consciousness whose name I forget): suppose Sally has been raised in a room without color, just shades of gray; she has instruments that can tell her what wavelength various colors might have, their intensities and so forth, but she has never experienced the color red, so she really doesn't know what it is. What you experience when you see red or hear the Symphony Fantastique may be be totally different from my experienc, but we'll never know what that difference is, nor will any psychologist. And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)--or, as W.H. Auden said, "thou shalt not sit with statisticians nor commit a social science

 

Sketchily put, science is based on methods that formulate hypothesis and questions based on observations, and through, ideally, objectively performed and rigorously repeated tests form conclusions based on consistent results. That is why it works. No mystery.

The mystery isn't in the measurements or their relation to equations but in their interpretation. That's why physicists and philosophers are still debating about what quantum entanglement means in terms of "reality", "non-locality", etc.

 

All I know about Wigner is he was a physicist. Maybe you can explain to me what some of his ideas were, and specifically, what he indicates we can never learn and why?

Wigner was important for formulating some of the very early and fundamental applications of quantum mechanics, particularly involving the use of symmetry, and in trying to interpret the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics, i.e. the collapse of the state function on measurement. One of his speculative notions was that consciousness--the act of observing--was involved. Do a Google search on "Wigner's friend" to get a fuller explanation.

 

What I know about non-locality is how it relates to quantum entanglement. Particles linked to one-another and influence one another instantaneously no matter how far away. The point is, aspects of it contribute to a continuing mystery. Same with the shark deal. What specifically about a particular mystery renders it beyond understanding forever?

I think quantum non-locality is a different kind of mystery from that of how white sharks breed. Presumably with enough government funds and ingenuity one could explore the latter--i.e. there should be nothing intrinsically mysterious about breeding for any terrestial species. On the other hand quantum non-locality (and other aspects of quantum mechanics) seem to contradict what we know intuitively about the world. Richard Feynmann gave a lecture at Caltech (to freshman and others) about quantum mechanics and prefaced it with the remark (as near as I remember) that anyone who says he understands quantum mechanics doesn't. Physicists have used QM operationally--you get numbers out that represent what can be measured, but what a state vector is or what happens when you make a measurement is still a mystery.

[PhDwannabe]

And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)

 

I'd dearly love to know what you mean by that one.

[AzurePhoenix]

I don't believe behaviorism or developmental psychology can explain "qualia", categories of what's it's like or what one's values are.

Individual perceptions of qualia, by the very nature of the concept, are indeed beyond the realm of verification. But for all intents and purposes, experience indicates that it's safe to assume that under normal circumstances we can communicate or comprehend one another well enough. While we can't prove that you see red the same way I do, such sciences can and often do go a long way in explaining why we react to different to it differently.

 

Functional MRI may show areas of the brain that are active when you hear or see something you like, but that isn't an explanation. Let me give an example (not mine, but from a philosopher of consciousness whose name I forget): suppose Sally has been raised in a room without color, just shades of gray; she has instruments that can tell her what wavelength various colors might have, their intensities and so forth, but she has never experienced the color red, so she really doesn't know what it is.

You're example comes closer to my point than it does your own. She has no exposure to or knowledge of red. So she has no opinion about it whatsoever, because she has no experience from which to draw associations with it. As a human being, she has more complexity than, say, a bird, which may react to such a flagrant, and often cautionary color as red with fear, so it's harder to determine how she would react to seeing red the first time, but I contend that a psychologist who had studied such things, and was familiar with Sally's general characteristics and past, would be able to predict how she might react to seeing the color red with reasonable accuracy.

 

What you experience when you see red or hear the Symphony Fantastique may be be totally different from my experienc, but we'll never know what that difference is, nor will any psychologist. And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)--or, as W.H. Auden said, "thou shalt not sit with statisticians nor commit a social science

As I pointed out above, even if qualia theory is valid, which, philosophically I grant you it may be, for all intents and purposes experience tells us that we might as well ignore whatever impact it might have. Our past experiences, long-term exposure, and/or social and cultural norms can go a long way to shaping our preferences, the tastes we might acquire over time in relation to beat or rhythm or what have you. Can you really claim that we have no capacity to understand why small town farming folk tend to prefer country western music while low income inner-city folks are more likely to prefer rap? This study for instance seems to make some valuable observations about why we like what we do

 

The mystery isn't in the measurements or their relation to equations but in their interpretation. That's why physicists and philosophers are still debating about what quantum entanglement means in terms of "reality", "non-locality", etc.

Reading a couple of your other posts elsewhere regarding your peculiar phrasing has led me to believe that perhaps I have to ask you what "means" means before I can accurately examine what you're saying.

 

Wigner was important for formulating some of the very early and fundamental applications of quantum mechanics, particularly involving the use of symmetry, and in trying to interpret the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics, i.e. the collapse of the state function on measurement. One of his speculative notions was that consciousness--the act of observing--was involved. Do a Google search on "Wigner's friend" to get a fuller explanation.

Yes, and there are other suggested interpretations that remove consciousness from the equation. Clarification; what distinct elements are you suggesting we can not understand?

 

I think quantum non-locality is a different kind of mystery from that of how white sharks breed. Presumably with enough government funds and ingenuity one could explore the latter--i.e. there should be nothing intrinsically mysterious about breeding for any terrestial species.On the other hand quantum non-locality (and other aspects of quantum mechanics) seem to contradict what we know intuitively about the world. Richard Feynmann gave a lecture at Caltech (to freshman and others) about quantum mechanics and prefaced it with the remark (as near as I remember) that anyone who says he understands quantum mechanics doesn't. Physicists have used QM operationally--you get numbers out that represent what can be measured, but what a state vector is or what happens when you make a measurement is still a mystery.

I agree on all points, leading me to ask, when you say "can't", do you mean, "can not as of now answer," or "can never answer" ?

[Ringer]

I don't believe behaviorism or developmental psychology can explain "qualia", categories of what's it's like or what one's values are. Functional MRI may show areas of the brain that are active when you hear or see something you like, but that isn't an explanation. Let me give an example (not mine, but from a philosopher of consciousness whose name I forget): suppose Sally has been raised in a room without color, just shades of gray; she has instruments that can tell her what wavelength various colors might have, their intensities and so forth, but she has never experienced the color red, so she really doesn't know what it is. What you experience when you see red or hear the Symphony Fantastique may be be totally different from my experienc, but we'll never know what that difference is, nor will any psychologist. And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)--or, as W.H. Auden said, "thou shalt not sit with statisticians nor commit a social science

It's called Mary's Room if anyone wants to look it up. The thought process is lacking in my opinion, since we can not see infrared we are somehow lacking for those who do? Also, what about when she is taken out of the room and experiences red? You see the same red, the experience is the same. So are you saying that our answers are lacking because they are based in psychology while you use philosophy as an argument?

[Sisyphus]

I don't believe behaviorism or developmental psychology can explain "qualia", categories of what's it's like or what one's values are. Functional MRI may show areas of the brain that are active when you hear or see something you like, but that isn't an explanation.

 

No, it isn't an explanation. It's a tool, and an imprecise one. That we currently don't have to capability to fully explain something as complex as your thoughts about music, does not make it an unscientific question. If you could fully map out neurological processes, there would not be any thoughts that could not be scientifically studied.

 

Do not confuse "unanswered" with "unanswerable."

 

Let me give an example (not mine, but from a philosopher of consciousness whose name I forget): suppose Sally has been raised in a room without color, just shades of gray; she has instruments that can tell her what wavelength various colors might have, their intensities and so forth, but she has never experienced the color red, so she really doesn't know what it is. What you experience when you see red or hear the Symphony Fantastique may be be totally different from my experienc, but we'll never know what that difference is, nor will any psychologist. And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)--or, as W.H. Auden said, "thou shalt not sit with statisticians nor commit a social science

 

Never say never. See above.

 

The mystery isn't in the measurements or their relation to equations but in their interpretation. That's why physicists and philosophers are still debating about what quantum entanglement means in terms of "reality", "non-locality", etc.

 

Yes and no. As I said above, questions with no observable consequences are outside the realm of science, and "interpretations" are indeed non-scientific (though philosophical) questions, albeit questions that require a degree of knowledge to even understand that generally only scientists in related fields possess.

 

However, just because aspects are not yet understood, does not mean they have no observable consequences. For example, Bell's Inequality falsified the hypothesis of local hidden variables, when many had assumed it was an untestable proposition.

 

Wigner was important for formulating some of the very early and fundamental applications of quantum mechanics, particularly involving the use of symmetry, and in trying to interpret the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics, i.e. the collapse of the state function on measurement. One of his speculative notions was that consciousness--the act of observing--was involved. Do a Google search on "Wigner's friend" to get a fuller explanation.

 

And he was wrong. But even if he wasn't, what makes consciousness unstudyable? Even an immaterial soul or whatever can be studied, because it has observable consequences in the world.

 

I think quantum non-locality is a different kind of mystery from that of how white sharks breed. Presumably with enough government funds and ingenuity one could explore the latter--i.e. there should be nothing intrinsically mysterious about breeding for any terrestial species. On the other hand quantum non-locality (and other aspects of quantum mechanics) seem to contradict what we know intuitively about the world. Richard Feynmann gave a lecture at Caltech (to freshman and others) about quantum mechanics and prefaced it with the remark (as near as I remember) that anyone who says he understands quantum mechanics doesn't. Physicists have used QM operationally--you get numbers out that represent what can be measured, but what a state vector is or what happens when you make a measurement is still a mystery.

 

Counterintuitive /= outside the realm of science

unknown /= outside the realm of science

 

Do not fall into the common trap of thinking that because quantum mechanics seems weird to us, the door is open to mystical/supernatural stuff.

 

It is not qualitatively different than the question of how sharks breed.

[needimprovement]

I'll preface my comments by a general remark: I'm a snob as far as science goes; science is formulating a theory, predicting results expected for that theory, doing the experiment to confirm the theory, so science is basically quantitative, physics and those disciplines which involve physics (including most of chemistry). For doing an experiment I'm willing to substitute making a measurement (as in astronomy, or geophysics, or molecular biology/genetics, physiology or neuro-physiology), so a bunch of other disciplines that people call science, I would call quasi-science: biology(other than the exceptions noted above), geology (other than geophysics). I wouldn't call psychology a science, because it lacks predictive theory, although it does do descriptions, and psychoanalysis is about on a par with witchcraft. And sociology, anthropology, political science are not even quasi-sciences. Which is not to say that interesting stuff occasionally comes forth from people who call themselves psychologists or psychiatrists. Oliver Sachs says a lot of valuable things, but they're anecdotal and not science.

 

Individual perceptions of qualia, by the very nature of the concept, are indeed beyond the realm of verification. But for all intents and purposes, experience indicates that it's safe to assume that under normal circumstances we can communicate or comprehend one another well enough. While we can't prove that you see red the same way I do, such sciences can and often do go a long way in explaining why we react to different to it differently.

 

That doesn't answer my point--qualia are individual and will never be translatable. We can guess, but never know "what's it like to be a bat".

 

but I contend that a psychologist who had studied such things, and was familiar with Sally's general characteristics and past, would be able to predict how she might react to seeing the color red with reasonable accuracy.

 

predicting how she would react is not the same as knowing what Sally experiences.

 

Our past experiences, long-term exposure, and/or social and cultural norms can go a long way to shaping our preferences, the tastes we might acquire over time in relation to beat or rhythm or what have you. Can you really claim that we have no capacity to understand why small town farming folk tend to prefer country western music while low income inner-city folks are more likely to prefer rap? This study for instance seems to make some valuable observations about why we like what we do

 

This looks like interesting stuff, but I wouldn't call it science. Pythagoras made a more interesting point over 2000 years ago, commenting on the frequency relations between notes that were pleasant and unpleasant... And the article in question still gives no clues as to why one piece of music is preferred over another, Berlioz over Bach or conversely. And although this article was a pop piece, it gave no statistics/errors, etc. And I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion. A friend Chinese was a fan of Chinese Opera and then became totally enamored of Western Opera...So much for being used to the pentatonic scale. Generalizations about groups are one thing (the mean score on the SAT is higher for Asian-Americans than for Caucasians, but you can't pick an individual Asian-American and say he/she will have a higher SAT score than some other Caucasian). Physics works the other direction. It has laws of motion for individual particles/molecules and from those and considerations of statistical mechanics predicts the bulk properties. And you can predict individual particle behavior, when they're sufficiently isolated. When psychology reaches the stage of psycho-history and predicts, quantitatively, from basic theory, as in Asimov's Foundation series, I'll overcome my bias and regard psychology as a science.

 

Reading a couple of your other posts elsewhere regarding your peculiar phrasing has led me to believe that perhaps I have to ask you what "means" means before I can accurately examine what you're saying.

 

"when I use a word it means whatever I choose it to mean".... the significance of "mean" should be clear in context and from general usage. I don't know how I can amplify on that.

 

 

Yes, and there are other suggested interpretations that remove consciousness from the equation. Clarification; what distinct elements are you suggesting we can not understand?

 

I don't understand this comment. When you say "remove consciousness from the equation" could you please say more explicitly what your argument is?

 

I agree on all points, leading me to ask, when you say "can't", do you mean, "can not as of now answer," or "can never answer" ?

Right now I'm not altogether sure; In some respects, as Fr. Stanley Jaki and John Barrow have pointed out, science is intrinsically self-limiting. In other respects, like resolving the contradictions or gaps between relativity and quantum mechanics, a new theory may come up. And questions of practicality, like building particle accelerators powerful enough to prove or deny string theory, might in principle be overcome.

Edited August 19, 2010 by needimprovement

[padren]

The whole issue of why one person may like certain music more than other type - the main reason we can't answer that specifically, is that individual tastes are based on exceptionally complex variables. While we can actually build some good theories that may help explain generalized preferences within any given population, the specific tastes of an individual will not always fit within those parameters. In that sense, their tastes are "mysterious" simply because they can't be modeled, but does that really say anything that interesting?

 

Science may answer those questions some day, if a human brain can be completely mapped and modeled. We certainly aren't there now, but just because something is too complex to measure with current (or even possibly future) technology and methods doesn't mean the mechanisms are any less mundane than easily measured and predicted phenomena. If science can't measure something at all, then it's simply not a fruitful domain of scientific research. That is neither good or bad, it's just a fact.

[PhDwannabe]

The whole issue of why one person may like certain music more than other type - the main reason we can't answer that specifically, is that individual tastes are based on exceptionally complex variables. While we can actually build some good theories that may help explain generalized preferences within any given population, the specific tastes of an individual will not always fit within those parameters. In that sense, their tastes are "mysterious" simply because they can't be modeled, but does that really say anything that interesting?

 

I think there may be more rigorous, more testable, and more validated theory behind it than people think. Also, I think it's plenty interesting.