Questions outside the scope of science.

What are they??

Are there any??

By definition... Doesn't science have to be observable for it to be any good?

 

Proven, yes. Good, no.

 

Depends on how you define "scope of science". Are you asking whether something is unknowable to human beings? Possibly, at least as we exist now. But if you are asking whether something is unknowable in general, then the answer is no. Everything is knowable, by somebody.

 

philosophy.

 

Jumanji

 

Well, there is information we cannot, in principle, have access to - information coming from outside our future light cone. Any knowledge arising from that information is likewise unavailable, in principle.

There are computations that cannot, in principle, be completed in the life (or many lives) of this universe. Knowledge depending on such computations is likewise unavailable, in principle.

Along another path, proofs of negatives are not available. For example, a god that exists and acts in our universe/space time should be observable. No observations or detections have been made. This is not proof of non-existance. Induction is not a proof.

Among these classes can fit many questions. I'm sure there are more classes as well.

This still leaves lots to do. And justifiable, provisional positions to act upon.

 

Well, I think by "light cone" he was talking about path-like events on Lorentz diagrams, which, mathematically speaking, seems like a pretty good way of defining "unknowable."

 

Netslave
We're talking from a different philosophical point of view, of course. I'm talking about what can be known from a scientific approach. Said scientfic approach has narrow views of what observed, detected, etc may mean. In this context, my remark meant there is no physical theory behind a supernatural concept which posits potentially testable our negatable predictions. None of these types of observations or detections are available. I'd be happy to be made aware of such testable theories as may exist.

Of course, there are lay views of what these words mean, and so use them as you wish, but lets not argue different meanings.

Finally, scientific knowledge is always provisional (not so faith), so we can "justifiably believe" something without complete information or understanding. We'll never have such. We don't have forever to act out our lives.

 

In reply to:

---

---

 

You know me, RayDog, and I may be wrong. That said, i don't believe you can describe a photon as an electron-positron pair. Both the electron and the positron have a positive mass which means that as a pair they would have even more mass. A photon is massless.

There is a weekly podcast by Dr. Pamela Gay (Prof@Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and UT graduate) which just recently did a good 30 minute presentation on wave-particle duality. You can download the audio, or read the transcript: here (FYI, you have to scroll down for the transcript after it loads).

Most of it is a pretty basic run down of the current conception of wave particle duality for light. You might find of particular interest the bit at the end discussion about De Broglia and the observation of the wave-particle duality for all matter/energy.

 

I'm confused... and maybe I'm just not going to get this one, but just for the fun of it...

The rotation could not be 180 degrees, if it were there would be no forward propagation of the wave. In fact, depending on the wavelength we could be talking about a rotation in the direction of the wave SIGNIFICANTLY less than 180. In fact, the weaker the energy the larger the wavelength. You would think the magnetic attraction would be greater for higher energies, right?

Furthermore what you are describing is essentially an electromagnetic drag applied by "past" particles to the "present" particles during transition. The result would be that over distance the wavelength should decrease exponentially, but instead it increases linearally. Does the charge diminish with distance... or is there yet another mechanism?

 

I made it about seven posts.

 

Good discussions, guys.

On another thread GT made a comment that anyone believing in a young earth is in favor of "Pseudo-science". By and large, many of the proofs for a young earth do seem unreliable. But my point on this thread is that THE ENTIRE QUESTION of the age of the earth is beyond the scope of science. Science by definition has to be OBSERVED. No one, by definition, can observe something that happens over millions or billions of years.

So when he says, finding the age of a young-earth is pseudo-science... I say, so is finding the age of an old earth.

I'm not saying science shouldn't TRY. But science should be up-front about its limitations. I have no problem with someone saying, "Based on the most reasonable assumptions and best guesses we believe the earth's age is XXX" But instead, we get arrogance that if you believe the earth is less than XXX you are dismissed as a moron. Just one assumption scientists make in the area of earth age...
"They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant. How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s."

I think this is a difficult quandary... because scientists when attempting to tackle such a big question with so many unknown's do HAVE to make SOME assumptions. They can't begin to solve the problem unless they do. Then it is no longer purely scientific, though. Keep plugging away... but be up front about whatever assumption you make.

 

The speed of thought. All information, future, present and past are accessible in the explicate order through the implicate.

 

In reply to:

---

---

 

I think what OrangeChipper is trying to say is that while we can observe the evidence, we can't know for sure that the conclusions we've come to, based on that evidence, is correct. It's a 'best guess' scenario based on what we can currently see and measure and doesn't [can't] take into account the unobservable.

 

BTW, there is at least one explanation for a "young Earth" which would qualify as being "outside the scope of science", and which I've heard is actually used by some proponents of a young Earth/Universe. It basically says the Universe was created X number of years ago, in such a way that at the moment of creation, everything was “set up” in a way to make it appear much older even though it had never existed before.

So, for example, let’s say someone claims the Universe was created 5,000 years ago. Well, how do you explain the Grand Canyon, which would have taken millions of years to develop? It was already there when the Universe was created. What about the fact that stars which are 10,000 light years away can be seen from the Earth, so the light had to have been traveling for 10,000 years before it reached us? When the Universe was created, the light was already halfway to the Earth. Etc, etc…

Really, it is impossible to disprove the obviously unscientific notion that the Universe was created 15 minutes ago. All your memories of your past? They were planted in your brain at the moment of creation, so you believe you have lived out your whole life to date, but in reality you didn’t exist more than 15 minutes ago. Etc. etc…

 

JC, Thanks for the well-thought response.

I do understand your point. However, your analogy is flawed. We can RECREATE that instance with a bullet. (I've seen CSI, too)

We can't recreate something that takes millions of years. The science they use to estimate the age of the earth itself uses assumptions. I personally don't believe in a (super) young earth. But I don't see how we can conclusively say its 4.5 billion years either.

Some of the methods they use to get to the 4.5 billion number can be used to reach a number of up to 20 billion and as low as millions. SO FAR... after about 100 years of study, the rates they are using SEEM to be constant. But under different conditions which certainly existed in the prior millions + of years, how can we be certain??

William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."

The most persuasive point you make is how the different genre's of science come together in agreement. Maybe they all used the same basic assumptions?

For example, if I say N cannot = 1 from the get go.

Solve for N

N +/- 1 = 0

I HAVE to conclude that N = -1. If you assume from the beginning a naturalistic explanation, you will never get an answer with a supernatural explanation. Just doesn't happen.

Obviously, I believe certain parts of evolution are beyond the scope of science as well... for another time.

 

Orange Chipper, you may find it interesting to read the essay by Dr. Roger Wiens at this link:

The Link

The link is to the American Scientific Affiliation web site, the ASA is an organization of Christian scientists. Dr. Wiens, a member of the ASA, is a physicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

I would be interested in reading your response to Dr. Wiens’ essay, especially the final section on "Rightly Handling the Word of Truth".

 

Why does OU suck?







You guys are slipping.