What isn't science good for?
matrushkaka asked me a very good question recently: "Can you think of anything that science isn't good for?"
Math is only good for answering mathematical questions. Chemistry and physics are only good for addressing chemical and physical questions. And science is only good for answering scientific questions.
Science is concerned solely with empiricism. Physical reality. Things that can be directly or indirectly observed. Questions that can be answered through repeatable observation. If the question doesn't suggest a way to answer itself with empirical observation or at least point then it's not a scientific question. Was "Speed Racer" a good movie? You can't answer that question scientifically. You can observe the movie and record your observations or you can take exit polls to determine audience reaction but "good movie" doesn't have an objective definition. You either enjoyed it or you didn't - science doesn't deal with personal preference or subjective experience. Science can address questions like "does global warming exist?", "how much of global warming is due to human intervention?", and "how much more warming will there be in 20 years?" but it can't answer "what should we do about global warming?" That's a political question - it requires value judgement. "How can I keep my dying grandmother alive" is a scientific question. "Should I keep my dying grandmother alive" is not a scientific question; it's an ethical, moral, economic, and spiritual question. Science can inform but not answer political, moral, ethical, and spiritual questions with the weight that its answers normally carry. Scientists might have moral, personal, and political opinions and value judgements but that's just their opinion. Science itself cannot weigh in on nonscientific matters.
Science is also incapable of commenting on tautologies like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the entire universe in its present state three seconds ago including all the memories that make us think we've been around for much longer." The statement is unfalsifiable. Any test to determine whether this is true could be explained by saying "His Noodly Appendage made it so." Flying Spaghetti Monsterism isn't true or false from a scientific perspective - it sits beyond the reach of science.
Science is also incapable of dealing with anecdotes. For example, when he was about four years old my brother had a recurring nightmare about being chased by a pig-nosed dog. For a period of several months or years the pig-nosed dog was one of the biggest concerns in his life. His anecdotes aren't scientific proof of the existence of pig-nosed dogs, but this has nothing to do with the fact that this experience and concern was extremely powerful, important, meaningful, and immediate to him during that time.
Yesterday evening I saw a beautiful sunset while enjoying an exciting ride home from work. I said hi to my neighbors, played some Half-Life 2, and ate a delicious halibut dinner that matrushkaka cooked. All in all a very delightful and completely unscientific evening of anecdotal, value-driven subjective experience that I wouldn't trade for anything.
"Science ... gives only what it is meant to give. Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfil all his existential and spiritual needs." - Benedict XVI, 6 November 2006
The floor is lava. Science can't run anywhere it wants. It has to stay on the pillows, keeping in mind there's a lot that the pillows don't cover.
Science can't say or do anything it wants while standing on the pillows either. There are even more rules within those bounds. Evidence has to be not only empirical but reproducible. It has to be gathered with a sound methodology which passes Peer_review. When science is done well there are no double-standards; if any scientist falls short there will be no shortage of critics and detractors. Anyone, regardless of status or past accomplishments, has to walk the line properly in order for what they're saying to be scientifically valid.
The flip-side of all these restrictions is that within the isolated area where science is actually good for something and when proper procedure is followed, what emerges can be imbued with some surprisingly strong juju. And this brings me to my point.
People who want to avoid scientific scrutiny should be careful to avoid statements which can be disproven scientifically. "Good souls go to heaven" is not a scientific statement; no scientist is qualified to prove or disprove it empirically. "The soul weighs 21 grams" is a falsifiable scientific statement which has been falsified. "An influence which I call 'God' created the universe to become as it exists today" is an unfalsifiable tautology. "The earth was created 6,000 years ago" is falsifiable and strongly-disproven science. "I saw Bigfoot on my way home from work last night" is an anecdotal. "The Sonoma bigfoot video is genuine" has been conclusively disproven. Scientific statements are fair game for science.
Likewise, scientists who want to avoid debate should be careful to avoid making statements that they can't justify empirically. "The Kohanim are a genetically distinct lineage of Jews" is a strongly-proven scientific statement. "Jews are a morally inferior race" is not a scientific statement and cannot be proven scientifically. "Terry Schiavo has severe cerebral atrophy" is a verifiable fact. "Terry Schiavo should be euthanized" is not. "Down Syndrome is correlated with the age of the mother" is a strongly-proven scientific statement. "Women over 40 should not be allowed to have children" is not.
This is, I suppose, a variant of Stephen Gould's "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Science and nonscience are both valuable, but we need to know the difference and they need to keep their hands on their sides of the car.
"Science cannot replace philosophy and revelation by giving an exhaustive answer to man’s most radical questions: questions about the meaning of living and dying, about ultimate values, and about the nature of progress itself." - Benedict XVI, 6 November 2006
Math is only good for answering mathematical questions. Chemistry and physics are only good for addressing chemical and physical questions. And science is only good for answering scientific questions.
Science is concerned solely with empiricism. Physical reality. Things that can be directly or indirectly observed. Questions that can be answered through repeatable observation. If the question doesn't suggest a way to answer itself with empirical observation or at least point then it's not a scientific question. Was "Speed Racer" a good movie? You can't answer that question scientifically. You can observe the movie and record your observations or you can take exit polls to determine audience reaction but "good movie" doesn't have an objective definition. You either enjoyed it or you didn't - science doesn't deal with personal preference or subjective experience. Science can address questions like "does global warming exist?", "how much of global warming is due to human intervention?", and "how much more warming will there be in 20 years?" but it can't answer "what should we do about global warming?" That's a political question - it requires value judgement. "How can I keep my dying grandmother alive" is a scientific question. "Should I keep my dying grandmother alive" is not a scientific question; it's an ethical, moral, economic, and spiritual question. Science can inform but not answer political, moral, ethical, and spiritual questions with the weight that its answers normally carry. Scientists might have moral, personal, and political opinions and value judgements but that's just their opinion. Science itself cannot weigh in on nonscientific matters.
Science is also incapable of commenting on tautologies like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the entire universe in its present state three seconds ago including all the memories that make us think we've been around for much longer." The statement is unfalsifiable. Any test to determine whether this is true could be explained by saying "His Noodly Appendage made it so." Flying Spaghetti Monsterism isn't true or false from a scientific perspective - it sits beyond the reach of science.
Science is also incapable of dealing with anecdotes. For example, when he was about four years old my brother had a recurring nightmare about being chased by a pig-nosed dog. For a period of several months or years the pig-nosed dog was one of the biggest concerns in his life. His anecdotes aren't scientific proof of the existence of pig-nosed dogs, but this has nothing to do with the fact that this experience and concern was extremely powerful, important, meaningful, and immediate to him during that time.
Yesterday evening I saw a beautiful sunset while enjoying an exciting ride home from work. I said hi to my neighbors, played some Half-Life 2, and ate a delicious halibut dinner that matrushkaka cooked. All in all a very delightful and completely unscientific evening of anecdotal, value-driven subjective experience that I wouldn't trade for anything.
"Science ... gives only what it is meant to give. Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfil all his existential and spiritual needs." - Benedict XVI, 6 November 2006
The floor is lava. Science can't run anywhere it wants. It has to stay on the pillows, keeping in mind there's a lot that the pillows don't cover.
Science can't say or do anything it wants while standing on the pillows either. There are even more rules within those bounds. Evidence has to be not only empirical but reproducible. It has to be gathered with a sound methodology which passes Peer_review. When science is done well there are no double-standards; if any scientist falls short there will be no shortage of critics and detractors. Anyone, regardless of status or past accomplishments, has to walk the line properly in order for what they're saying to be scientifically valid.
The flip-side of all these restrictions is that within the isolated area where science is actually good for something and when proper procedure is followed, what emerges can be imbued with some surprisingly strong juju. And this brings me to my point.
People who want to avoid scientific scrutiny should be careful to avoid statements which can be disproven scientifically. "Good souls go to heaven" is not a scientific statement; no scientist is qualified to prove or disprove it empirically. "The soul weighs 21 grams" is a falsifiable scientific statement which has been falsified. "An influence which I call 'God' created the universe to become as it exists today" is an unfalsifiable tautology. "The earth was created 6,000 years ago" is falsifiable and strongly-disproven science. "I saw Bigfoot on my way home from work last night" is an anecdotal. "The Sonoma bigfoot video is genuine" has been conclusively disproven. Scientific statements are fair game for science.
Likewise, scientists who want to avoid debate should be careful to avoid making statements that they can't justify empirically. "The Kohanim are a genetically distinct lineage of Jews" is a strongly-proven scientific statement. "Jews are a morally inferior race" is not a scientific statement and cannot be proven scientifically. "Terry Schiavo has severe cerebral atrophy" is a verifiable fact. "Terry Schiavo should be euthanized" is not. "Down Syndrome is correlated with the age of the mother" is a strongly-proven scientific statement. "Women over 40 should not be allowed to have children" is not.
This is, I suppose, a variant of Stephen Gould's "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Science and nonscience are both valuable, but we need to know the difference and they need to keep their hands on their sides of the car.
"Science cannot replace philosophy and revelation by giving an exhaustive answer to man’s most radical questions: questions about the meaning of living and dying, about ultimate values, and about the nature of progress itself." - Benedict XVI, 6 November 2006