Science can't answer these questions

[Cypress]

If you're talking about human behavior, wants, needs, tendencies, inclinations, etc, which is based on some combination of biology, genetics and neurology, then, yes, I do believe there is a science of human behavior and with the correct understanding of biology, neurology and genetics (all of which I'd say are "science") we can answer questions about how we should live, what gives meaning to our lives and why, etc.

In fact, there is a genetic component to divorce, even.

Just vaguely pointing to genes and biochemistry doesn't constitute an explanation to the questions in the OP anymore than observing a falling apple explains gravity.

Other animals in the history of life have had genes, some were sentient, and at least one other hominid had bigger brains than Homo sapiens.

The development of complex religion, ethics, art, aesthetics, abstract contemplation proceeded much faster than we typically see in an evolutionary biological time scale.

Speculating that someday, some way, somehow science will explain and answer the four questions in the OP is strictly the realm of conjecture and guesswork.

 

[ZenMode]

Just vaguely pointing to genes and biochemistry doesn't constitute an explanation to the questions in the OP anymore than observing a falling apple explains gravity.

Other animals in the history of life have had genes, some were sentient, and at least one other hominid had bigger brains than Homo sapiens.

The development of complex religion, ethics, art, aesthetics, abstract contemplation proceeded much faster than we typically see in an evolutionary biological time scale.

Speculating that someday, some way, somehow science will explain and answer the four questions in the OP is strictly the realm of conjecture and guesswork.

Of all the things you mentioned in the OP, or even since then, which of them would you say don't have a direct link to human consciousness? The meaning of existence? The idea of meaning for anything comes from human consciousness, right? How to live life is directly related to the consciousness of all humans, right? The need, or lack of need, for some people to seek out interactions with other people is also directly related to consciousness. The success or failure of economic systems, like socialism, is directly related to tendencies and human nature, right?

Isn't it all related to our genes and biology of the brain, which are directly related to, even if not fully explained by, science.

 

[Into the Night]

These questions are universally shared by all human beings.

1. Is existence meaningful, absurd, or both?
2. How should I live my life? Does it matter?
3. Do I need other people? Why? How?
4. What does death mean, if anything?



Francis Ambrosio, Georgetown University

Science isn't a 20 questions game.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

NONE of these questions refer to any falsifiable theory.

 

[Into the Night]

I actually think science can somewhat answer questions 2 and 3 now and will be better capable of answering both in the future as our understanding of the human brain improves.

A simple example related to #3.... research has shown that isolation can most definitely be detrimental to mental health. If, in the future, our knowledge of the brain increases, we will likely be able to pinpoint precisely why that is the case.

Science is not a 'research' or a 'study'.

 

[Into the Night]

Agree. Science just describes physical events. It has nothing to say about 98% of what people care about day to day.

Science is not a description of events. Science has no emotion.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, I think science is fascinating and inspiring.

You deny science, Sock. You routinely deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have also denied Newton's law of motion, the ideal gas law, Gibb's law, Ohm's law, Planck's law, both of Einstein's laws, Kirchoff's law, Heisenberg's law, Schrodinger's law, acid-base chemistry, oxy-reduction chemistry, etc.

But as interesting as neutron stars, quarks, and fossil trilobites are, they aren't the kind of thing most people think about or need to live life on a daily basis.

Science is not a star.
Science is not a quark.
Science is not a fossil.

The vast majority of people don't know calculus,

Science is not mathematics. You also deny mathematics, including statistics, probability, random numbers, and algebra.

quantum mechanics, or inorganic chemistry. We just need trained elite experts

Science is not 'experts'. It is not any degree, license, certification, or any other government sanctification.

to apply the science for technological purposes.

Science is not engineering.

 

[Into the Night]

I think your right that science can provide mechanistic explanations and useful medical information.

Science is not information.

But I've read a lot of chemistry, physics, and biology textbooks and articles,

I don't believe you. You deny science. Science is not a book or article.

and I've never run across one that gives useful insights and guidance into the questions posted in the OP.

Science is not religion or philosophy.

 

[Into the Night]

"Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched."
Wittenstein, Tractatus, 6.52

https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/...genstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.pdf

Science is not questions.

 

[Into the Night]

Right and there is a neurological or maybe genetic explanation for why isolation isn't good for our mental health. With sufficient understanding of brain functionality, we could explain why. Same is true for things like corporal punishment. If we had sufficient understanding of the brain to truly understand the impact the hitting kids with wooden boards, we'd likely have scientific justification for completely outlawing it.

The impact of hitting kids with wooden boards is impact. Science is not a justification.

 

[Into the Night]

Wittgenstein is right, and that should be self evident.

Even when Einstein was writing about politics, peace, racism, social problems, he wasn't using quantum mechanics of the field equations of general relativity.

Science is not a person.

 

[Into the Night]

Why would we need science to tell us something we already knew? Seems regressive.

Science is not knowledge.

 

[Into the Night]

We don't need modern science to tell use humans are social animals.

Plato, Confucius, and Aristotle knew that.

Science is not religion. Science is not philosophy.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, understanding "that" isn't the same as understanding "why". I can't imagine not seeing the benefit of a more thorough understanding of the human brain. Wouldn't it be nice to base ideas like morality on something objective and not the perceived desires of imaginary beings?

There is no number measuring 'morality', Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Science can answer those questions

Science is not religion or philosophy.

 

[Into the Night]

3. Do I need other people? Why? How?



It’s proven humans need other humans


Medical science has proven that

Attempted proof in open functional system fallacy.
Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system.

 

[Into the Night]

What does death mean, if anything?


It means no longer being a functioning human being


That has been proven by science

Science is not religion nor philosophy. Science has no proofs.

 

[Into the Night]

I have never in the history of science seen a discussion of ethics.

Science is not ethics.

 

[Into the Night]

I know. That's what I want to see change.

Science is not ethics.

 

[Into the Night]

Science is defined by physical objects and events. I do not see how ethics fits into a physical event.

Science is not an object.
Science is not an event.

 

[Into the Night]

Human phycology is a science

Psychology is not science.