Does Science Kill the Magic?

[cafolini]

Science these days with a few notable exceptions is boring,dogmatic and of not help in discussing the human condition. Art will always be more magic than science,and the experience of life itself is even more magic than art.
The body and soul are inseperable,with the proviso that the soul will outlive the current material body then search for another!

The problem you have with that is that science is the art and the life of the day. All the rest is merely historical and lingers on with reduced energy.

[Drkshadow03]

The problem you have with that is that science is the art and the life of the day. All the rest is merely historical and lingers on with reduced energy.

While I think there can be some beautiful photos of galaxies that has artistic qualities, very few people I know would consider science and scientific discovery art in the way normal people use the word.

[cafolini]

While I think there can be some beautiful photos of galaxies that has artistic qualities, very few people I know would consider science and scientific discovery art in the way normal people use the word.

I think you'll be surprised. Have fun.

[Drkshadow03]

I think you'll be surprised. Have fun.

Doubt it. But if you enjoy traveling to the Museum of Natural History only to confuse it for the MET or manage to get the same thrill from the reports at Science Daily as you do from Shakespeare, what can I say but enjoy?

[Taliesin]

I do suspect that science is art and has aesthetical qualities mainly if you have studied it enough, a sort of an acquired taste, if you will. I'm also rather certain that it's not for everybody. But then again, the same holds for quite a number of authors.

I also think that education plays a part - people might not understand nor enjoy neither Joyce nor quantum chemistry but since they have been taught that Joyce is art but quantum chemisty is not, they will say that the former is art but the latter is not. They will also therefore believe that it is possible to enjoy Joyce but not possible to enjoy quantum chemistry.

Of course, there are differences between art and science - in art, broadly speaking, everything is allowed, while science, so that it could be calles science, should describe reality in some sense. But if we forget this aspect and discuss just the aesthetic one, I think that what I said above is true.

[cafolini]

I do suspect that science is art and has aesthetical qualities mainly if you have studied it enough, a sort of an acquired taste, if you will. I'm also rather certain that it's not for everybody. But then again, the same holds for quite a number of authors.

I also think that education plays a part - people might not understand nor enjoy neither Joyce nor quantum chemistry but since they have been taught that Joyce is art but quantum chemisty is not, they will say that the former is art but the latter is not. They will also therefore believe that it is possible to enjoy Joyce but not possible to enjoy quantum chemistry.

Of course, there are differences between art and science - in art, broadly speaking, everything is allowed, while science, so that it could be calles science, should describe reality in some sense. But if we forget this aspect and discuss just the aesthetic one, I think that what I said above is true.

But Joyce is science as much as art. That's why people who hated science burned his first shipment of books to America.

[Climacus]

Science qua science cannot touch let alone kill the extra-scientific. How could it? We can use science-informed premises to philosophise about the supernatural. But science as science can neither prove nor disprove the same. That would be asking science to do something non-scientific.

[MystyrMystyry]

I was in the local church this morning recording their performance of Handl's Messiah. That can easily take a person higher than science (and technology, and philosophy etc etc)

I think if they did it every Sunday I'd show up much more often

[cafolini]

Science qua science cannot touch let alone kill the extra-scientific. How could it? We can use science-informed premises to philosophise about the supernatural. But science as science can neither prove nor disprove the same. That would be asking science to do something non-scientific.

Proving that a 40+ lb force is necesary to lift a 40 lb sofa is enough to prove that the crazy cat that makes a video lifting it with mental emissions is insane. What about the retarded group in Puerto Rico who has this fellow that inserts his fingers inside an electric outlet and pases the electrical energy to the other hand to light a paper with the sparks, without electrocuting his body?
Science needs not prove what has been scientifically determined impossible.

[Climacus]

Proving that a 40+ lb force is necesary to lift a 40 lb sofa is enough to prove that the crazy cat that makes a video lifting it with mental emissions is insane. What about the retarded group in Puerto Rico who has this fellow that inserts his fingers inside an electric outlet and pases the electrical energy to the other hand to light a paper with the sparks, without electrocuting his body?
Science needs not prove what has been scientifically determined impossible.

You're missing the point, friend, to say nothing of begging the question. The point was that scientists qua scientists are methodological naturalists.

But suppose we argue: "Scientifically it's impossible that p. Therefore not p." You'll notice two things about this sort of argument, I hope. (1) It's a non sequitur. And (2) it's a science-informed philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.

[cafolini]

You're missing the point, friend, to say nothing of begging the question. The point was that scientists qua scientists are methodological naturalists.

But suppose we argue: "Scientifically it's impossible that p. Therefore not p." You'll notice two things about this sort of argument, I hope. (1) It's a non sequitur. And (2) it's a science-informed philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.

Because of that, they are impossible arguments. And they are impossible precisely because they are already proven non squitor. You are the one who's missing the point that it is science that will not argue them because they are ridiculous. But why are they ridiculous? Because science has shown them an impossibility.
Before humanity was overcome by science, they were argued all the time among the pseudoscientists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Climacus]

Because of that, they are impossible arguments. And they are impossible precisely because they are already proven non sequitur.

You might have bothered to learn what non sequitur means before responding. There's no such thing as a proven non sequitur. Non sequitur means 'does not follow.' The non sequitur argument is logically invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise(s). In our two-proposition example - "Scientifically it's impossible that p. Therefore not p" - the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise.

You are the one who's missing the point that it is science that will not argue them because they are ridiculous. But why are they ridiculous? Because science has shown them an impossibility.

No, science doesn't deal with the non-scientific just because it is non-scientific. You're asking scientists to do philosophers' work. Commit this to memory: scientists qua scientists are methodological naturalists. (But, note well, philosophers qua philosophers needn't be naturalists.)

It never fails, proponents of scientism are always logically deficient. But let's try a different tack. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."

[cafolini]

You might have bothered to learn what non sequitur means before responding. There's no such thing as a proven non sequitur. Non sequitur means 'does not follow.' The non sequitur argument is logically invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise(s). In our two-proposition example - "Scientifically it's impossible that p. Therefore not p" - the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise.



No, science doesn't deal with the non-scientific just because it is non-scientific. You're asking scientists to do philosophers' work. Commit this to memory: scientists qua scientists are methodological naturalists. (But, note well, philosophers qua philosophers needn't be naturalists.)

It never fails, proponents of scientism are always logically deficient. But let's try a different tack. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."

We disagree rotundly. And I think it is obvious that you are labeling scientists philosophically (methodogical naturalists = strightjacket) to dispose of the argument in the brutal way philosophers have always used.

[ForrestJG]

Science is beautiful, and perhaps the most sublime thing one can be educated about; to actually learn about your place in the universe and marvel at the wonders of existence is just too awe inspiring. Everyone should be scientifically literate, because it is so advantageous to their lives. Science doesn't kill the mystery...it reveals it and makes it more profound. Read Dawkins' brilliant book 'Unweaving the Rainbow', to understand it. Dawkins was the one who introduced me to science - basically after reading 'The God Delusion', I became interested in it.
But seriously...get into science.

[cafolini]

Science is beautiful, and perhaps the most sublime thing one can be educated about; to actually learn about your place in the universe and marvel at the wonders of existence is just too awe inspiring. Everyone should be scientifically literate, because it is so advantageous to their lives. Science doesn't kill the mystery...it reveals it and makes it more profound. Read Dawkins' brilliant book 'Unweaving the Rainbow', to understand it. Dawkins was the one who introduced me to science - basically after reading 'The God Delusion', I became interested in it.
But seriously...get into science.

I agree. There was a time when we fought analphabetism. We won that battle with enough critical mass and used it as a springboard to fight for scientific literacy. We are now half ways there, soon to be there. It is very exciting.