Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[Akemrelax]

26 minutes ago, commie said:

Sure but like I said, how did you prepare for technical exams? With HW-type drudgery, unless you were some kind of genius.

Even in my HS, I'm not sure whether HW was theoretically compulsory (in practice some teachers didn't even require attendance) and you wouldn't get a diploma if you failed the finals badly enough. But then only one in 7 or 8 kids would go to high school. You can't change the demographics without adapting the teaching. And the reason too many kids go to high school or college isn't pedagogy but bourgeois hegemony.

I feel you on the deeper understanding (one of my HS teachers wouldn't even answer questions about the examination materials if it went beyond the correct calculations) but actual science has technical foundations, to varying degrees. Maybe lookup the word "technical". Even outside of science, learning languages (especially dead ones) can involve quite a bit of drudgery for instance. Ideally kids would have worked through much of this stuff in high school or earlier but...

Are you a teacher? Why are you defending homework man?

Homework in Highschool is necessary to a certain level, after all students have to learn addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, grammar, and writing. But what is the point of having homework in university, especially in science programs?

We have the "technical skills" to understand science, we dedicated the past 12 years getting those. I looked up the meaning of "technical" here's one of the definitions: "of, involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences." If I am not in applied science, not learning a language, then why am I being forced to do HW like a robot? At least make it optional! My university has made it for marks, like more than 40%!

I am here to understand differentiation, not to get efficient at differentiation, that a calculator can do. 

For technical exams, I got high grades in high school without doing much of any HW. If other students need HW to pass then give it to them. But why am I being forced to do it? The actual science, like lab work, observing, and experimenting - is all rushed - labs are all rushed!

Tell me, would Newton have done science this way? 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Akemrelax

[SonataAllegro]

@Leo Gura I think for this series to be successful you need to draw a clear distinction between the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, concluding, etc) and scientific models (conceptual representations of the results of experiments). The method is an inquiry process of discovering the unknown, essentially the same as the self inquiry methods you talk about but applied to the "external" world. The problem you address in your videos is about mistaking the models of science for the territory of reality. The method, though, is an invaluable skill that, if directed inward, will transform your life.

It's like how there's a lot of valuable lessons that can be extracted from religion to produce a profound spiritual life, but only if you can avoid dogmatic attachment to one religion. So one question I have for you is, are there any lessons that can be drawn from our current scientific models that can be applied to personal development?

Read this insightful article I posted earlier: https://medium.com/@kaitaraporevala/seeing-the-world-as-it-is-not-as-we-wish-it-to-be-the-story-of-charles-darwin-cfba6cbe69a

Can't wait for the series!

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, SonataAllegro said:

The method, though, is an invaluable skill that, if directed inward, will transform your life.

Scientific method is a myth. No such thing exists. There cannot be a finite method for investigating reality, since reality is infinite.

This series will deconstruct this myth.

[Jodistrict]

Another distinction that can be made is between objective science and subjective science.  The West developed objective science by directing its attention to an outside world.  The East developed a subjective science by directing its attention to the interior world.  The Buddha was a subjective scientist.  The Buddha was as precise as any objective scientist.  Meditation can be seen as subjective science.  I got this distinction from a Shinzen Dharma talk I attended many years ago.

https://www.liamchai.com/soe/

Edited October 23, 2020 by Jodistrict

[SonataAllegro]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Scientific method is a myth. No such thing exists. There cannot be a finite method for investigating reality, since reality is infinite.

This series will deconstruct this myth.

What's the difference between scientific experimentation and self inquiry? Sure, they're worlds apart in paradigm, but they use the same principle of starting from a place of not knowing rather than a place of dogma. The scientific method may lead to a bastardization of reality but doesn't it have its place in getting people to understand how self inquiry and recontextualization work?

[Sebiwert]

I see many limits to science, but here are some counterarguments:

Science builds models of reality. Under the assumption of materialism, a lot of material-manipulation (and thus better living conditions for humans) was achieved. With science and its ability to sort out pipe dreams from universal models, we are able to navigate our everyday lives better and get come consensus.

On the other hand we have spiritual gurus and religions, who say they know the truth, but can't prove it. Even worse: The Teachers often can't agree on the truth. They can't give models of what's happening. They say stuff like: Meditate, Take Psychedelics, Live in the Now; You are god, ... 

I think the hard task is not to achieve the states of 'god consciousness' (although this is hard already ). The hard task is to communicate it to others, give them a safe path and guidance. Give them maps that have some consensus. Teach them. And in this regard, I think spiritual people have also a lot to learn from the lessons that science has already integrated.

[mmKay]

But Leo! I'm not a coffe table. The boundries between my body and that Ikea piece or furniture are SOLID and OBJECTIVE! 

But L e O! I do exist! I'm not a thought or a concept. I have name, I own a car, I have parents and I was squeezed out of my moms womb. LOOK at this picture of ME being born in 97. THAT is my mom and THAT is me! See?! 

But Leo! My hand is not made out of lofty "Consciousness" Or "Love"! Look! Its a piece of bones and meat? Haven't you ever seen an Xray or gotten slapped in the face?! 

 

Leo, the back of my head does exist.  Every time I go to the hairdresser they tell me I have a hair swirl. How could all of them say the same if it was not because of the the back of my head existing independently of me looking at it?! 

 

Etc, WIP. 

[Elisabeth]

@Leo Gura Huh, I'm late to the party. Are you finished with the series? 

If not, I hope you can spare a moment on the practical aspects, to point out how the current method of financing based on short-term grants and counting the number of publications/citations ruins science (even in its limited version).

As far as I can tell as a phd student, any good basic research in the last few decades has been done by driven, conscientous people despite the system, not because of it.

You can't get creative with your ideas inside of academia and strategic with long-term research, because you only have 2 years of funding until you have to apply anew. You're pressed to publish prematurely, unfinished stuff cut into short bits. Nobody cares about repeating results, because then your finding is not new and journals don't care. It's impossible to learn about failures. 

So much is broken in how western society finances and incentivizes research. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Elisabeth

[Leo Gura]

@Elisabeth You're not late at all. We're just warming up the engine.

You're right of course. Capitalism seriously corrupts and biases science and that is a topic I plan to address in Part 2 or 3.

[Elisabeth]

Oh yeah, and I forgot: Accademia is a pyramid scheme, with few on the top and many on the bottom. Every professor has many more students, striving to make a living through science and inadvertently failing. (Over here, at least most young scientists/teachers are employes, I understand in USA they are contract workers, making 'academic poverty' a thing.) The system uproots people in their thirties, making them move places and jobs quite randomly every 1-3 years several times if they wanna have a position in their beloved field, with devastating consequences for family life and sometimes health. This affects women disproportionally (since a career break for kids is close to impossible) but is problematic for men too. Sigh. 

[Tim R]

@Leo Gura Will you address the use of intuition in science?

 

Most scientists don't like "airy fairy" things like intuition although they always use it and great discoveries stem from their intuition. 

"[...] it's a feeling into things that comes to answers and leaves no trail [...]. So you you you have it - but you haven't the argument for it and so it's  power must reside in its truthfulness. So the power of intuition lies in its ability to express truth in contravention to the forward flow of logic and casuistry."

(T. McKenna's description of intuition)

 

[Leo Gura]

@Tim R I already addressed it at the end of the 1st video. But I will touch on it some more.

[eggopm3]

One thing that has struck me about the development of science is that even though it always claims to bring us to truth, that truth changes drastically from one scientific era to another. For example, science once said that the sun revolved around the earth, but eventually science made new discoveries and changed it's position. 

So my question is: How can we discern which things modern science claims to know as true will remain true within science, and which things will be replaced with new science? Is it inevitable that every piece of scientific "truth" will evolve into something different over time? If so, than to what degree should we even take modern science seriously? Surely someone from the year 3020 would look at the scientific "truths" of 2020 as being quaint and outdated, much like how we see the scientific views of the middle ages. (and likewise someone from 4020 would look at 3020 in the same way, and so on for as long as humans continue to exist) However, there were also many qualities of the science of the middle ages that remain relevant today. So how do we determine which facets of science will remain stable and which won't? Is it not possible?

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, eggopm3 said:

So how do we determine which facets of science will remain stable and which won't?

By doing better science

[Happy Lizard]

Something I came up with after contemplating on this week’s video on science: when do we as a society decide to drop the level of importance that we give to science, for example in schools, and start emphasizing something other than science like perhaps cooking? (Or it can be meditation or witchcraft or something else) I realized that since I’ve entered school as a kid, from then on math, science and later biology and physics where super important and emphasized, to the point that sometimes my parents and teachers would call them “the important subjects” or “the main subjects” in other words what I SHOULD be learning at school. I’m now seeing it from a different point of view, what if schools where more fluid and relaxed about teaching these subjects? What if it was based on what society needs at the current stage? (More artist? more musicians? more shamans? Philosophers?) focusing on what is needed rather than what worked last century. 

but who would make the call? And how would these Ideas even get introduced to be considered by schools, politicians or parents? 
 

it’s deep fucking rabbit hole once you start thinking about it. 

[Nahm]

This is awesome and I am looking forward to it! I second the Sean Carrol invite motion too. John Hagelin, more so.  I think the overall potential rebuttal would be if there is no objective reality, what is science and what are the specific limits of science of which there are objections.  

 

 

[EternalForest]

I watched all of Pt. 1 of the Science series. Here are my comments and objections:

Science is constantly getting better, and we may never reach the end or have one perfect specific method. That's the point of science, to have a more and more accurate understanding of the world. It's not this static thing. It's the best truth we have so far. Just because it's not written in the universe, doesn't mean we're not doing the best we can do. Sure, there were inaccuracies in the past, there are inaccuracies now, and there will be in the future. But this is the best we can do, constantly strive to be the best version of science we can be. However, we can only work with what's measureable. We cannot account for things any given person cannot verify for themselves. This is why intangible feelings and experiences such as Love or personal or spiritual experiences aren't useful in serious scientific study. A fact is something observable by anyone. A personal experience is not.

Science is actually the opposite of ego and religion, Science is willing to fix its mistakes, while religion isn't. New science books are constantly being published, but religion's holy books are unchangeable, And no, you cannot do science without first understanding it. It's not about who you are or where you come from, it’s about pure discovery. That's the beauty of science. It’s actually completely free of ego. 

Science can only comment on the physical world, what is and how it works, but that doesn't mean that there can't be logic put into other domains. There is very sound logic in filmmaking as you mentioned, but it is separate from science’s domain. It’s the domain of storytelling, cinematography and artistry. Science is also not just a system to manipulate reality, it is the only system we know of to consistently measure and manipulate reality as constantly and deeply as it does. Show me some other non-scientific system that can consistently make sense of and manipulate reality (with deep understanding) in the way that science does, and prove me wrong.

A valid method of science is able to be verified by anybody. An idea starts as a theory then matures into a scientific law. This is to avoid dogma; testing and retesting and retesting by multiple individuals is vital. And everything is revisable as we find better information. That first person on earth you speak of would just find what works, and that's all science is, what works, so yes they would be doing their own form of science. The people that believe the shaman are not scientists but the shaman who did the experiment is. However, you don't have to be a scientist to study science. Science doesn't have to make a religion out of it. You have to separate science from religion, however you can use truths and methods found from religious cultures to be integrated into and advance science.

It's not harmful to look through a telescope, but the full long term effects of psychedelics are not yet fully known. We must dismiss any method that is not objective. An experience you have on a drug is not objective, because what I see on the drug is not the same thing you see on the drug. And even if it was, there is no way to objectively prove it. 

History is not relative, either. Either something happened or it didn't. The narrative you spin about it is another story.

All in all, while you made some good points and your intentions of making science better are good, the bettering of science is in fact science's entire goal, and I hope I've made that point in this post.

Thanks for reading, and good luck with the rest of the series!

[Leo Gura]

@EternalForest Thanks for the feedback.

But now consider this:

Isn't it odd how any time someone like me speaks out about the bettering of science, the majority of people hear it and take the attitude of, "Shut up. Everyone knows science isn't perfect and it's already bettering itself."

Can't you see that this attitude is precisely what keeps science corrupt? How can science better itself when any time someone seriously points out a problem you ignore it because you tell yourself science is the sort of thing which betters itself. Science only betters itself if you are open to contemplating its errors without defensiveness or dismissiveness.

It's like when your daughter gets raped and comes forward to you and you say, "Shut up. We already know society isn't perfect. It's inherent to society to evolve and improve. This is the best we can do."

[commie]

17 minutes ago, EternalForest said:

However, we can only work with what's measureable.

No, both scientists and students work primarily with abstractions. Often these refer (in principle at least) to measurable things but sometimes not.

17 minutes ago, EternalForest said:

We cannot account for things any given person cannot verify for themselves.

You could not possibly verify most of science by yourself. Hundreds of years ago, you could have but that phase in the development of science is long gone.

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, EternalForest said:

the bettering of science is in fact science's entire goal

Sometimes people's actions don't match their intentions.