What are the questions science can't answer?

[Ringer]

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.

 

Really? So saying, "Oh, I don't consider that a science so everything they study I can disregard. Oh, other scientists respect those "quasi-sciences" and consider them science, well what do experts know?" makes it a valid argument. You don't consider them sciences because they have an element you're uncomfortable with? How can you say biology/geology/psychology doesn't make accurate predictions?

 

 

 

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".

 

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

 

So are you asking to predict what she would experience? We can't tell if she'd experience red? Of course she would, that's like saying, "well this person has never been burnt before so we can't accurately predict if that fire will hurt her."

 

 

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.

 

PhD's link looks like a fine retort.

 

"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.

 

But all too many times these things turn into semantic wars

 

 

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 could be wrong but I believe she was more talking about the duality theory of consciousness

[divagreen]

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;

 

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I am just going to address this one, Op.

 

Music isn't just an expression, it's not just an art form; there are qualities and quantities to what music is that adhere to laws of physics, it goes deeper. There are limits to what can be perceived by any specific human, ...that are purely dependent on whether or not their brain has experienced the ability to discern the difference.

 

See: Daniel J. Levitin's extensive research at McGill university to see what we've discovered via the science of neurology.

 

That said, ...the axiom, "There's no accounting for taste" is not exactly true.

 

Ask a musician who's trained from childhood.

 

Music is an "art" and a "science", ...the art consists of the phenotype, ...the performance, ...the synthesis. It is also based on a science, a body of knowledge, theory and method, ...it's analogous "genealogy".

 

Sure, perception is subjective (isn't it always?), ...but your view ignores the "other side" of perception.

[needimprovement]

Really? So saying, "Oh, I don't consider that a science so everything they study I can disregard. Oh, other scientists respect those "quasi-sciences" and consider them science, well what do experts know?" makes it a valid argument. You don't consider them sciences because they have an element you're uncomfortable with? How can you say biology/geology/psychology doesn't make accurate predictions?

I'll admit I was a bit harsh in that classification, but here's my definition of science: a general theory that can support sub-theories, that can be used to make predictions, which in turn can be verified by experiments or measurements--to either confirm or falsify the theory/model. So theory, quantitation, measurement are all necessary parts of this. These elements are present in physics and allied disciplines, and to lesser extent in other disciplines. Biology makes quantitative predictions in genetics and molecular biology, enzyme kinetics and some other parts, so to that extent it can be called scientific. Taxonomy and classical evolutionary biology I don't regard as all that scientific, since the quantitative element is missing. Geology is descriptive for the most part, putting aside geophysics, and to that extent is missing what I'd call an essential element. Psychology is missing a general theory (there seem to be lots of sub-theories, but nothing equivalent to what quantum mechanics or general relativity tells us about the world) and as far as I can see the quantitation is mainly in neuro-physiology. All the IQ tests and Personality Tests I consider to be total nonsense.

 

So are you asking to predict what she would experience? We can't tell if she'd experience red? Of course she would, that's like saying, "well this person has never been burnt before so we can't accurately predict if that fire will hurt her."

Here's a story Oliver Saks tells about a blind person whose sightlessness was cured by an operation--the first sight of people was like seeing trees walking (amazing how that parallels one of the miracle stories, Jesus curing a blind person); and in a similar vein, people previously blind had trouble distinguishing figures--triangles, squares, etc--visually, even though when blind they have a good tactile appreciation of the difference between different geometric forms. What this suggests to me that there's more to a perception than just sensory input. There's a learning process involved (which babies go through) and that suggests in turn a higher level of organization going on.

 

PhD's link looks like a fine retort.

not sure quite how to take that!

 

I could be wrong but I believe she was more talking about the duality theory of consciousness

I'm not quite sure whether I'm a dualist or not; there's the classic objection, how does the mind/spirit interact with the body. And the Church, I believe, says as a point of dogma that the body and soul are one entity, not two. So at this stage of the game I'm not sure

how to resolve the mystery other than saying it's a mystery;

 

I am just going to address this one, Op.

 

Music isn't just an expression, it's not just an art form; there are qualities and quantities to what music is that adhere to laws of physics, it goes deeper. There are limits to what can be perceived by any specific human, ...that are purely dependent on whether or not their brain has experienced the ability to discern the difference.

divagreen, I couldn't agree with you more on what you just wrote; and I'll certainly agree that brains (or people) have to be trained to appreciate and understand music. Nevertheless there are differences in likes and dislikes that confound, I believe, psychological understanding.

 

See: Daniel J. Levitin's extensive research at McGill university to see what we've discovered via the science of neurology.

I tried to google a site, and what I found was very glitzy--as near as I can see, trying to plow through all the popular songs and hype, it seems that Levitin is using functional MRI (about which I know something) to show which areas of the brain light up when different types of music are played. That is not a scientific explanation, in my view of what it's all about; you can show the areas of the brain that are active, even track the chemicals that are produced in neurons, but you won't explain why I thrill on hear "Amazing Grace" or "Thaxted". I know a little about neurology (having been involved as an MRI physicist in the latter days of scientific career), and I think it's more like engineering than science.

 

That said, ...the axiom, "There's no accounting for taste" is not exactly true.

It's not exactly true, I agree, but given two people with similar backgrounds and musical training you would not, I believe, be able to form a top ten list for each (and I'm talking about classical music--popular stuff that's played now is just noise).

 

Ask a musician who's trained from childhood.

I have.

 

Music is an "art" and a "science", ...the art consists of the phenotype, ...the performance, ...the synthesis. It is also based on a science, a body of knowledge, theory and method, ...it's analogous "genealogy".

don't really understand what you wrote above.

 

Sure, perception is subjective (isn't it always?), ...but your view ignores the "other side" of perception.

I will agree that there's a lot of physics involved in music; Pythagoras showed that over 2000 years ago when he noted the relation between harmonics and string lengths that were plucked, i.e. harmonics and frequencies. Nevertheless, that's very much like saying a novel is compounded of chemicals (I'm talking real books, not ebooks), so the novel is just a matter of chemistry.

 

You make some good points; but what I'm trying to say is that environment, training, neurology, all the physics are incomplete; they tell part of the story, but don't explain why some harmonies, some music, some dissonances, move us deeply, or to quote from another thread, why singing a hymn is praying twice..

[Ringer]

I'll admit I was a bit harsh in that classification, but here's my definition of science: a general theory that can support sub-theories, that can be used to make predictions, which in turn can be verified by experiments or measurements--to either confirm or falsify the theory/model. So theory, quantitation, measurement are all necessary parts of this. These elements are present in physics and allied disciplines, and to lesser extent in other disciplines. Biology makes quantitative predictions in genetics and molecular biology, enzyme kinetics and some other parts, so to that extent it can be called scientific. Taxonomy and classical evolutionary biology I don't regard as all that scientific, since the quantitative element is missing. Geology is descriptive for the most part, putting aside geophysics, and to that extent is missing what I'd call an essential element. Psychology is missing a general theory (there seem to be lots of sub-theories, but nothing equivalent to what quantum mechanics or general relativity tells us about the world) and as far as I can see the quantitation is mainly in neuro-physiology. All the IQ tests and Personality Tests I consider to be total nonsense.

 

I saw the thread addressing this point so I won't say anymore on this here

 

Here's a story Oliver Saks tells about a blind person whose sightlessness was cured by an operation--the first sight of people was like seeing trees walking (amazing how that parallels one of the miracle stories, Jesus curing a blind person); and in a similar vein, people previously blind had trouble distinguishing figures--triangles, squares, etc--visually, even though when blind they have a good tactile appreciation of the difference between different geometric forms. What this suggests to me that there's more to a perception than just sensory input. There's a learning process involved (which babies go through) and that suggests in turn a higher level of organization going on.

 

There are also studies that show some cultures distinguish different shades of yellow as different colors. That doesn't mean that we see different colors we are just taught to group them differently. The first sight of people walking being like trees walking assumes previous knowledge of what trees look like and puts them in the same category. Since we can assume that the blind person has never seen trees that they didn't say, "that looks like a walking tree!" Their trouble distinguishing figures by sight doesn't mean they experience them differently either, imagine trying to read with your eyes closed using your hands (I used to do this when I was a kid a lot). Same thing, you're just not used to doing it so it's troublesome until you are used to using your hands in that way.

 

not sure quite how to take that!

 

The link seemed to be a good read on musical tastes from a scientific point of view.

[needimprovement]

What are the questions science cannot answer?

 

Anything to do with origins of anything. We can only fathom the B-Z. The A is elusive.

[Moontanman]

The idea that there actually are questions science cannot answer assumes that science is limited in some way to what we know now. Science is always advancing, not long ago the idea that a machine could actually show what you are thinking was ludicrous now it's reality and getting better all the time. 100 years ago the things people were sure science could not answer was much longer list than it is now, the list grows shorter daily. to suggest anything is beyond science is a huge assumption that will eventually be shown to be incorrect...

[iNow]

What are the questions science cannot answer?

 

Anything to do with origins of anything.

Rubbish. The origins of bacteria's ability to digest nylon is quite well understood. Since you phrased your comment in the absolute, it's easily refuted with one single counter example. Next?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

[needimprovement]

Next?

What if we cant understand the answer. Will machines on day, in science answer a question, in a language that we are incapability of understanding due to our limited/inferior intellect?

[iNow]

What if we cant understand the answer. Will machines on day, in science answer a question, in a language that we are incapability of understanding due to our limited/inferior intellect?

Move the goal posts much?

[needimprovement]

Rubbish. The origins of bacteria's ability to digest nylon is quite well understood. Since you phrased your comment in the absolute, it's easily refuted with one single counter example. Next?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

Your phrasing is odd

 

the origins of bacteria's ability

 

and I think you are not really responding to what I meant. Whatever you would say explains bacteria's ability is somewhere in what I was referring to, the B-Z range.

[iNow]

Your phrasing is odd

 

the origins of bacteria's ability

 

and I think you are not really responding to what I meant. Whatever you would say explains bacteria's ability is somewhere in what I was referring to, the B-Z range.

So... let's see here. I gave an example which proved your assertion false. I provided data about my example, and details on what it means. I showed that, yes... we can explain the origins of something using science.

 

You then responded that, "Oh no... There is actually a step before that, you just don't know it. You just can't see it, so you're wrong." And... somehow... you think your point is more valid than my counter?

 

 

Erm... okay. It's rather tough to penetrate self-reinforcing delusion like that using reality and evidence. I concede. Carry on.

[AzurePhoenix]

and I think you are not really responding to what I meant. Whatever you would say explains bacteria's ability is somewhere in what I was referring to, the B-Z range.

Soooo... what's this mystical A then? Obviously it's not the origin of life from non-life itself, since we have lots of good hypothesis with which to fathom that... I doubt you mean the origin of the various chemical compounds that would go on to become life... hrmm... we've got a good handle on where the heavier constituent elements of those compounds came from... and of course the lighter elements formed during the early phases of the big bang via nucleosynthesis before they collected together in stars to get fused into those heavier elements. Leaving you with wherever the Big Bang came from, which, it seems, we have a number of models to work with and fathom that might very well explain it. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're right, regardless, we're not fathomless.

 

Where would you put A?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What if we cant understand the answer. Will machines on day, in science answer a question, in a language that we are incapability of understanding due to our limited/inferior intellect?

In my experience, we just invent more and more sophisticated mathematical constructs to help us deal with concepts we can't understand. Quantum mechanics, for example, makes sense mathematically but not intuitively.