“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
― Albert Einstein
You misuse the quote. It's possible to create scientific experiments that test aspects of Beethoven's Symphonies that wouldn't be adequately explained if we just look at the raw graph of variation of wave pressure. E.g. the artistry contained therein, and the sociological import. Einstein was a physicist and his choice of 'wave pressure' shows that he was talking about physical science interpretation and explanation of a Beethoven symphony. We clearly view a symphony as having worth and structure at a much higher abstract level than that. And scientific method can be applied to those higher abstract levels too.
If we wanted to claim that Beethoven was a highly influential innovator, then it would be possible to get musical experts to produce blind (to the question of the experiment) analysis of a large number of pieces of music written before, during, and after Beethoven's time. This could show whether or not the innovations attributed to Beethoven were present before Beethoven used them, whether Beethoven was part of a wider development of musical sophistication or whether there was a sudden step change temporally consistent with Beethoven being a considerable innovator, etc.
We can perform scientific experiments to see what aspects of melody, musical forms, etc. provoke what reactions in listeners, and how these differ depending on (e.g.) the musical knowledge, culture, age group, etc. of the listeners. We can perform scientific experiments to see what proportion of enjoyment of a musical piece is due to the original composition, and how much is due to skilled performance, etc.
As a TL;DR summary addressing SaturnV's post, we can perform scientific experiments which measure, and characterise, people's subjective experience. The considerable strength of the placebo effect in evaluation of audio hardware is one such case. For Beethoven, one such question might be whether or not people rate a piece of music higher if it was written by Beethoven compared to if it is labelled as being by an unknown composer.
If something has an effect on our universe or our perception of it, then the scientific method could be used to investigate it. There were scientific experiments on the power of prayer.
As a TL;DR summary addressing SaturnV's post, we can perform scientific experiments which measure, and characterise, people's subjective experience. The considerable strength of the placebo effect in evaluation of audio hardware is one such case. For Beethoven, one such question might be whether or not people rate a piece of music higher if it was written by Beethoven compared to if it is labelled as being by an unknown composer.
If something has an effect on our universe or our perception of it, then the scientific method could be used to investigate it. There were scientific experiments on the power of prayer.
Well then I apologise to Einstein, though the intention was benign.
Would you say that Science has the capability to eventually answer the question of whether or not all things are subject to Natural Law ? Or am I asking a question that cannot be answered in a scientific manner ?
I thought that was good.... but what I meant as you might have guessed was aside from theory, prediction and application has anyone thrown any light on how light exists in nature. Has anyone come close to accurately describing the alleged corporal substance of this ethereal phenomenon without producing insurmountable paradoxes. Like how can it travel through space? If it exists in space then what's its size shape and boundary limits within space time? Einstein admitted he didn't know what a light quanta was, and didn't believe that anyone else did either, but that was over 60 years ago.
I thought that was good.... but what I meant as you might have guessed was aside from theory, prediction and application has anyone thrown any light on how light exists in nature. Has anyone come close to accurately describing the alleged corporal substance of this ethereal phenomenon without producing insurmountable paradoxes. Like how can it travel through space? If it exists in space then what's its size shape and boundary limits within space time? Einstein admitted he didn't know what a light quanta was, and didn't believe that anyone else did either, but that was over 60 years ago.
I'll have a snoop about and see.....once I've done at least one wall.
Well then I apologise to Einstein, though the intention was benign.
Would you say that Science has the capability to eventually answer the question of whether or not all things are subject to Natural Law ? Or am I asking a question that cannot be answered in a scientific manner ?
You are asking a very vague question. If by natural law you mean that there are universal morals built into human nature, independent of culture and context, then this could very appropriately be addressed by science. Even if there is only a tendency for humans to follow those laws.
Or, you could be discussing whether or not there is an objective moral law, which exists whether or not any living agents choose to follow it or not. If the laws are separated from the actual practical morals of living things, then this would be something that does not affect our observable universe, and not included in the scientific remit as in my post a page or two back.
I thought that was good.... but what I meant as you might have guessed was aside from theory, prediction and application has anyone thrown any light on how light exists in nature. Has anyone come close to accurately describing the alleged corporal substance of this ethereal phenomenon without producing insurmountable paradoxes. Like how can it travel through space? If it exists in space then what's its size shape and boundary limits within space time? Einstein admitted he didn't know what a light quanta was, and didn't believe that anyone else did either, but that was over 60 years ago.
Like anything, science creates current best theories about how the world acts. We know a lot about light, but we don't know everything. Whether or not science is the best way of knowing does not depend on whether or not it has perfect explanations for everything right now. What is important is whether it leads to better explanations of (and therefore more knowledge of) the world and how it works than alternative methods.
Here are two questions for you: Of what we know about light, how much of this is due to past scientific work, and how much is due to other methods of knowing?
Also: Do you think that we will know a lot more about light's true nature in 100 years (if society continues)? If so, do you think that better understanding will come about due to scientific research, or some other method of knowing. If you say another method of knowing, what method will that be?
Like anything, science creates current best theories about how the world acts. We know a lot about light, but we don't know everything. Whether or not science is the best way of knowing does not depend on whether or not it has perfect explanations for everything right now. What is important is whether it leads to better explanations of (and therefore more knowledge of) the world and how it works than alternative methods.
Not sure where you believe I have an issue. I don't wish to go through all my reasoning in this thread again but I do not have an issue with a statement that the scientific method creates theories about how the world acts. The problem I have is when people use it inappropriately to support theories about how the world is. That was the point behind my question. Your earlier example that there were scientific experiments on the power of prayer is a great example. Given your apparent position you might disagree, but I believe it was discussed in an earlier thread last year.
Here are two questions for you: Of what we know about light, how much of this is due to past scientific work, and how much is due to other methods of knowing?
I can't answer this question. You'd have to ask the scientists concerned. It would make for a most interesting conversation - not least because they're dead. Anyway previous answer applies and makes the question irrelevant to any ontological position.
Also: Do you think that we will know a lot more about light's true nature in 100 years (if society continues)? If so, do you think that better understanding will come about due to scientific research, or some other method of knowing. If you say another method of knowing, what method will that be?
Yes, I'd imagine there will be advances in many of the fields of science.. I don't believe there will be advances in our understanding of the nature of being and existence so I have some doubts regarding the discovery of the true nature of light. I would say there is the possibility of personal and direct knowledge but you have restricted my answer with the use of "we". And anyway that would be contentious unless it precipitated some experiment which would make it scientific.
That frequently wasn't really optional, and any resistance to any or all of these was me with - at the very least - deep suspicion. Being openly of no faith (or the wrong one) was 'frowned upon' to put it mildly.
Yes, in practical terms it wasn't optional ie. there was a requirement for anyone within the religion to baptise their children, marry within the church etc. But there's not much evidence that religion was an unwelcome poisonous ideology that was imposed on the masses.....people seemed content enough to be part of whatever religion they were part of.
Certainly the institutions of religion have become discredited in recent decades because of the abuse scandals and completely unnecessary and overzealous meddling in people's lives, but it's not as if the basic message itself of the existence of a God and the need for people to treat each other well has been undermined
Or, you could be discussing whether or not there is an objective moral law, which exists whether or not any living agents choose to follow it or not. If the laws are separated from the actual practical morals of living things, then this would be something that does not affect our observable universe, and not included in the scientific remit as in my post a page or two back.
Yes I am referring to this.
Is it possible to separate them ? If not, are they just being ignored , denied existence or deemed irrelevant by science ?
Yes, in practical terms it wasn't optional ie. there was a requirement for anyone within the religion to baptise their children, marry within the church etc. But there's not much evidence that religion was an unwelcome poisonous ideology that was imposed on the masses.....people seemed content enough to be part of whatever religion they were part of.
Certainly the institutions of religion have become discredited in recent decades because of the abuse scandals and completely unnecessary and overzealous meddling in people's lives, but it's not as if the basic message itself of the existence of a God and the need for people to treat each other well has been undermined
Those are two different messages. The later is not dependent on the former and indeed quite frequently belief in the former is used to undermine the later. There is nothing recent about that. Armies have killed with God on their side for almost as long as religion has been recorded.
Comments
You misuse the quote. It's possible to create scientific experiments that test aspects of Beethoven's Symphonies that wouldn't be adequately explained if we just look at the raw graph of variation of wave pressure. E.g. the artistry contained therein, and the sociological import. Einstein was a physicist and his choice of 'wave pressure' shows that he was talking about physical science interpretation and explanation of a Beethoven symphony. We clearly view a symphony as having worth and structure at a much higher abstract level than that. And scientific method can be applied to those higher abstract levels too.
If we wanted to claim that Beethoven was a highly influential innovator, then it would be possible to get musical experts to produce blind (to the question of the experiment) analysis of a large number of pieces of music written before, during, and after Beethoven's time. This could show whether or not the innovations attributed to Beethoven were present before Beethoven used them, whether Beethoven was part of a wider development of musical sophistication or whether there was a sudden step change temporally consistent with Beethoven being a considerable innovator, etc.
We can perform scientific experiments to see what aspects of melody, musical forms, etc. provoke what reactions in listeners, and how these differ depending on (e.g.) the musical knowledge, culture, age group, etc. of the listeners. We can perform scientific experiments to see what proportion of enjoyment of a musical piece is due to the original composition, and how much is due to skilled performance, etc.
As a TL;DR summary addressing SaturnV's post, we can perform scientific experiments which measure, and characterise, people's subjective experience. The considerable strength of the placebo effect in evaluation of audio hardware is one such case. For Beethoven, one such question might be whether or not people rate a piece of music higher if it was written by Beethoven compared to if it is labelled as being by an unknown composer.
If something has an effect on our universe or our perception of it, then the scientific method could be used to investigate it. There were scientific experiments on the power of prayer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VytwOA-bR14
He seems to ;-)
No, I did.
Do you have a point or are you just compelled to respond to every post without necessarily saying anything or making sense?
Thanks that makes more sense now.
Well then I apologise to Einstein, though the intention was benign.
Would you say that Science has the capability to eventually answer the question of whether or not all things are subject to Natural Law ? Or am I asking a question that cannot be answered in a scientific manner ?
I thought that was good.... but what I meant as you might have guessed was aside from theory, prediction and application has anyone thrown any light on how light exists in nature. Has anyone come close to accurately describing the alleged corporal substance of this ethereal phenomenon without producing insurmountable paradoxes. Like how can it travel through space? If it exists in space then what's its size shape and boundary limits within space time? Einstein admitted he didn't know what a light quanta was, and didn't believe that anyone else did either, but that was over 60 years ago.
I'll have a snoop about and see.....once I've done at least one wall.
I couldn't wait. Nope not yet .
I really have to stop this. I'm off to focus on my own Todo list. Catch you again sometime..:)
You are asking a very vague question. If by natural law you mean that there are universal morals built into human nature, independent of culture and context, then this could very appropriately be addressed by science. Even if there is only a tendency for humans to follow those laws.
Or, you could be discussing whether or not there is an objective moral law, which exists whether or not any living agents choose to follow it or not. If the laws are separated from the actual practical morals of living things, then this would be something that does not affect our observable universe, and not included in the scientific remit as in my post a page or two back.
Like anything, science creates current best theories about how the world acts. We know a lot about light, but we don't know everything. Whether or not science is the best way of knowing does not depend on whether or not it has perfect explanations for everything right now. What is important is whether it leads to better explanations of (and therefore more knowledge of) the world and how it works than alternative methods.
Here are two questions for you: Of what we know about light, how much of this is due to past scientific work, and how much is due to other methods of knowing?
Also: Do you think that we will know a lot more about light's true nature in 100 years (if society continues)? If so, do you think that better understanding will come about due to scientific research, or some other method of knowing. If you say another method of knowing, what method will that be?
Not sure where you believe I have an issue. I don't wish to go through all my reasoning in this thread again but I do not have an issue with a statement that the scientific method creates theories about how the world acts. The problem I have is when people use it inappropriately to support theories about how the world is. That was the point behind my question. Your earlier example that there were scientific experiments on the power of prayer is a great example. Given your apparent position you might disagree, but I believe it was discussed in an earlier thread last year.
I can't answer this question. You'd have to ask the scientists concerned. It would make for a most interesting conversation - not least because they're dead. Anyway previous answer applies and makes the question irrelevant to any ontological position.
Yes, I'd imagine there will be advances in many of the fields of science.. I don't believe there will be advances in our understanding of the nature of being and existence so I have some doubts regarding the discovery of the true nature of light. I would say there is the possibility of personal and direct knowledge but you have restricted my answer with the use of "we". And anyway that would be contentious unless it precipitated some experiment which would make it scientific.
Yes, in practical terms it wasn't optional ie. there was a requirement for anyone within the religion to baptise their children, marry within the church etc. But there's not much evidence that religion was an unwelcome poisonous ideology that was imposed on the masses.....people seemed content enough to be part of whatever religion they were part of.
Certainly the institutions of religion have become discredited in recent decades because of the abuse scandals and completely unnecessary and overzealous meddling in people's lives, but it's not as if the basic message itself of the existence of a God and the need for people to treat each other well has been undermined
Yes I am referring to this.
Is it possible to separate them ? If not, are they just being ignored , denied existence or deemed irrelevant by science ?
Those are two different messages. The later is not dependent on the former and indeed quite frequently belief in the former is used to undermine the later. There is nothing recent about that. Armies have killed with God on their side for almost as long as religion has been recorded.