An Ode to Skepticism: Elder Gods of the Gaps

Clearly you don't agree or you wouldn't ask the question.

I was agreeing with the statement

Saying "science will figure it out" doesn't in any way mean that whatever science ultimately figures out will be exactly what modern reductionists or materialists would say that thing would be like.

So what is the problem?

~~ Paul

Well, define "know".  If you mean "know" in the sense that we have listened to them speak then the answer is yes.  Start with Lawrence Krauss.
Can't help but feel like you are trying to obfuscate the overarching point here.  Its pretty straightforward and rather easy to see by listening to some of the more vocal representatives of "science".

What sorts of things does Krauss say that makes you think he believes that science, strictly as we know it today, will answer all questions, scientific or otherwise?

~~ Paul

I was agreeing with the statement

Saying "science will figure it out" doesn't in any way mean that whatever science ultimately figures out will be exactly what modern reductionists or materialists would say that thing would be like.

So what is the problem?

Well Paul, for starters it has just never struck me in listening to someone like, say, Krauss (since he was brought up), that what he means when he insists that science will figure it out is that the end result could take on many forms, including those that he time and time again ridicules. I don't believe when people like Krauss say that science will figure it out that they're being open minded and leaving the door open for some future non-reductive discovery. So, yeah, when someone like him says "science will figure it out," I sure don't believe that they're agreeing with the sentiment that you're saying you agree with.

I really don't have anything to add that Dante didn't cover.  Paul, I have to believe you are being purposefully obtuse here.

Well Paul, for starters it has just never struck me in listening to someone like, say, Krauss (since he was brought up), that what he means when he insists that science will figure it out is that the end result could take on many forms, including those that he time and time again ridicules. I don't believe when people like Krauss say that science will figure it out that they're being open minded and leaving the door open for some future non-reductive discovery. So, yeah, when someone like him says "science will figure it out," I sure don't believe that they're agreeing with the sentiment that you're saying you agree with.

That may be true of Krauss, I don't know. But I don't think it's true of scientists in general.

The problem with saying that the solution may end up being nonreductive is that a nonreductive explanation tends to be no explanation at all. But I'm open to the possibility that some things may reduce to fundamentals that are as yet undiscovered.

~~ Paul

The problem with saying that the solution may end up being nonreductive is that a nonreductive explanation tends to be no explanation at all. But I'm open to the possibility that some things may reduce to fundamentals that are as yet undiscovered.

Right.  So you aren't open to anything non-reductive.  That's fine, but by forcing a constraint you really aren't "open".  You're doing nice job of drawing out the point though.

Right.  So you aren't open to anything non-reductive.  That's fine, but by forcing a constraint you really aren't "open".  You're doing nice job of drawing out the point though.

What would a nonreductive explanation of something look like?

~~ Paul

What would a nonreductive explanation of something look like?

~~ Paul

I think it looks like this:

"I tend to be skeptical too when it comes to any individual case but I think the overwhelming evidence is that strange things happen to people that are not easily explained with "normal" explanations."
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-s...2#pid22172

That is, when something goes missing when investigated closely, it falls back on what is seen from a safe* distance. 

Linda

*"Safe" = unable to tell whether events happened as reported.

I don't know Paul.

While reductive explanations are powerful and common, they may not be the only form for knowledge.  Aren't you presupposing reductive explanations as the only valid form?  Again, its your constraint, not mine.  If you argument is something like "Its worked so far to the exclusion of any other paradigm" I certainly get that, but that does not mean it will always be that way.  I'm open to other potential avenues.

I don't know Paul.

While reductive explanations are powerful and common, they may not be the only form for knowledge.  Aren't you presupposing reductive explanations as the only valid form?  Again, its your constraint, not mine.  If you argument is something like "Its worked so far to the exclusion of any other paradigm" I certainly get that, but that does not mean it will always be that way.  I'm open to other potential avenues.

I'm open, too, but if someone can't give a coherent description of what it might look like in principle, then I'm not sure why it's worth entertaining until such time as someone can.

It's the same reason why I don't think libertarian free will is worth the bother, at least for now.

~~ Paul