Papal Visit to the UK

[notyoueither]

I wouldn't say it was incidental. It was integral.

[MikeH]

i broadly agree with this, and you've put it better than i could. my questions were in response to mike h's assertion that every question can be answered by (hard) science. JM and i have posed some questions which we believe cannot be answered in this way, and obviously, there are many more besides.

And several of us have answered them. You just don't like the answers! That's not our problem.

people can say that it's only about chemistry, but this ignores the fact that humans do not consider the question in this way

Much science goes against 'common sense' or standard human view of the world. That doesn't make it wrong. I'm afraid that "that's not how humans consider it" isn't a rebuttal of the arguments.

These days we take complex concepts like the big bang, evolution, gravity for granted, but they were all massively controversial when they came out.

Evolution of emotions is hardly new, Darwin proposed it 150 years ago. And we know a lot more about it now. You claimed in an earlier post that my comments about emotions in animals are irrelevant. Why? Animal emotions have the same roots as ours. Us being able to think and talk about them more intelligently doesn't make them different.

[MikeH]

well if you mean supernatural in the sense of magic and miracles then you are right. however i am talking about something different.

we know that 2+2 = 4, and we can construct a mathematical proof for it. in a similar way, we can study chemicals in the brain, and say that chemical x interacts with chemical y and produces result z, and the proof for this is evidence e. in cases such as these there is a clear method for studying the problem, of finding an answer and a proof of the answer. however, when considering question like "what is love" or "what is good" you cannot approach it in the same way. as we have seen here when people try to answer these questions in a 'scientific' way, they often come up with answers that are not scientific or answers which are but do not really address the question.

of course, i do not deny that you can shed light on aspects of many problems we consider philosophical by the application of science, but that is different thing to providing an answer.

You can't phrase the question in a way that will get you an answer that will satisfy you. We have comprehensively answered "what is love" several times. Read up on emotional evolution if you want to know more.

[MikeH]

If I said science "will discover all" I mis-spoke. I thought I'd said that "science could discover all". I doubt we'll be around long enough to find everything out. I can't be bothered going back through the thread to find what I said, but argue against that concept at least if you are going to.

[BeBMan]

You can't phrase the question in a way that will get you an answer that will satisfy you. We have comprehensively answered "what is love" several times.

No, you didn't. You offered a chemical explanation, which can be completely inadequate to describe or explain 'love' in other fields than chemistry, depending on the context in which it is asked. And now you tell everyone the answer is cool and that they can't ask the same question in a different light. Well, thing is, this is absolutely normal, legitimate, and not even per se unscientific. Rather it would be unscientific IMO to reduce an issue so much that you can point to a single set of explanations and then tell everyone "Here you have it guys, don't ask anything else about it". And this is nothing which goes specifically for the "love" example.

You can for example very well talk about 'space' in physics and then find out that the physical knowledge you got doesn't help you at all in other (academic or non-academic) fields. Debating 'space' in physics produces a certain set of knowledge which can be rather secondary or even useless for debating 'space' in sociology, architecture, philosophy, geopolitics etc etc.

So even for those who think science could answer everything the chemical answer to love given here was far away from being a "comprehensive" answer to the question "what is love", because love is not exclusively an issue of chemistry. You could as well approach it from other fields.

[MikeH]

It's not just chemistry. I didn't say it was just chemistry. I talked about emotional and intelligent development in all animals and talked about how science is rapidly gaining understanding in these areas (although we still know little).

The question was "Can science explain love?"

We have answered (in very broad terms), how it works and how it came to be. I've also very briefly touched on how a scientific approach can help people with emotional problems. People have repeatedly said "that's not enough" but no-one has specifically said "It doesn't answer question x..."

So I ask again. Science can/will be able to answer how it works, how it came about (ie. why love can make us feel great and horrible), and how to treat/assist/process emotions in the most beneficial way. All of which are very widely written about if people want to read further.

What are we missing? I honestly can't see what science won't be able to answer about Love. And I honestly think none of you have been able to explain adequately what it is you think is missing, other than some airy fairy ideal that there should be something more to it than that. Why?

What else, specifically, is science missing?

[MikeH]

You can for example very well talk about 'space' in physics and then find out that the physical knowledge you got doesn't help you at all in other (academic or non-academic) fields. Debating 'space' in physics produces a certain set of knowledge which can be rather secondary or even useless for debating 'space' in sociology, architecture, philosophy, geopolitics etc etc.

This appears to be utterly meaningless. Are you talking about knowledge of cosmology being useless in architecture?! Well of course, it's not about that. Or do you mean the concept of a volume of space, which might not be occupied by buildings and people?

If your point is that a knowledge of the make up of the Earth's atmosphere doesn't help you much in Geopolitics... well DURR!

If you are suggesting that scientific understanding of how brain chemistry, cognitive science and emotional evolution doesn't help you assist people deal with their emotions that seems ludicrous. There is nothing else behind it. Thousands of years of human history and trial and error have pulled together some broad guidelines for coping with emotions. But we are finding that these are very often of very limited use. A bit like chinese medicine, some things were great and have been processed into proper treatments, some things just superstitious nonsense. Same with brain medicine. Our history and need to consider things like 'love' 'the soul' as somehow special hold us back.

[MikeH]

Also it being 'just chemistry' doesn't make it any less amazing. It doesn't make the art, music, literature etc. any less special.

To me it makes it more special. Just as I think understanding how a galaxy, stars and planets form is a much more beautiful and amazing process than it being the product of some ludicrous sounding creator.

[BeBMan]

It's not just chemistry. I didn't say it was just chemistry. I talked about emotional and intelligent development in all animals and talked about how science is rapidly gaining understanding in these areas (although we still know little).

The question was "Can science explain love?"

We have answered (in very broad terms), how it works and how it came to be. I've also very briefly touched on how a scientific approach can help people with emotional problems. People have repeatedly said "that's not enough" but no-one has specifically said "It doesn't answer question x..."

So I ask again. Science can/will be able to answer how it works, how it came about (ie. why love can make us feel great and horrible), and how to treat/assist/process emotions in the most beneficial way. All of which are very widely written about if people want to read further.

What are we missing? I honestly can't see what science won't be able to answer about Love. And I honestly think none of you have been able to explain adequately what it is you think is missing, other than some airy fairy ideal that there should be something more to it than that. Why?

What else, specifically, is science missing?

For example "should we have a baby" - hard science does usually not answer questions of "should" (assuming here everything is ok, and there are no health or other concerns in which science would certainly have an important say). Afaik (correct me if I'm wrong) it is an ongoing debate whether it even *can* answer such questions because of their normative dimension.

Similarly in the field of love you could ask "I think we're in love -- should we marry eachother/our relation doesn't go so well right now -- should we divorce" or anything long those lines.

This appears to be utterly meaningless. Are you talking about knowledge of cosmology being useless in architecture?! Well of course, it's not about that. Or do you mean the concept of a volume of space, which might not be occupied by buildings and people?

If your point is that a knowledge of the make up of the Earth's atmosphere doesn't help you much in Geopolitics... well DURR!

I illustrated the prob that complex issues cannot suffiently dealt with by providing explanations which are limited to a certain aspect of that issue only. If your later posts mean that you are not into the simplistic "it's all chemistry" than we have no disagreement at this point. And that btw, is no judgement at all about chemistry itself and its usefulness. However, for parts of the debate I had the impression the question was reduced to that single field, so I felt the need to make that point -- which why it isn't meaningless

If you are suggesting that scientific understanding of how brain chemistry, cognitive science and emotional evolution doesn't help you assist people deal with their emotions that seems ludicrous. There is nothing else behind it.

Oh it may help in the decision making process, no prob. But I don't think it answers every question. How does science answer the question for people when they ask themselves if they want/should something like marriage?

Oh yeah - we could examine their chemicals/brain states/whatever. But apart from the practical difficulties already mentioned the question of marriage is quite far-reaching: for example, people usually don't plan to divorce the next day, so examining certain data at point X doesn't tell you if that will still be the same tomorrow or in 6 weeks or whenever. Yet you need to decide at some point and people here simply need to trust eachother to a certain extent.

But in doing so, they do no act based on scientifc evidence (and please don't answer that science may still explain their decision or what "trust" is - sure, but that's another category, and it does not mean that science answers the question "should we marry"). Yet it is neither per se mysterious nor generally unreasonable or irrational to trust your loved one - as Asher wrote some posts before, it may be highly influenced by personal experience. But that's not science.

[MikeH]

You can't make the decision for people, but if you have enough historical data on the people involved you will be able to predict what they will choose. You can also help with some of it. "I think we're in love and want to know if we should get married?" Well we will be able to test to see if you are really in love, and we can already begin to evaluate the benefits to a couple of making a formal bond. Whether that be legal marriage or something else.

I think the evidence is clear enough that making a formal bond improves the quality and longevity of a relationship so it's worth doing. Whether that be traditional marriage/civil partnership or something else. Also well proven that emotion in a couple develops from the first couple of years of lust to a more solid emotional bond, and that that bond can form without the initial rollercoaster of lust bit.

We don't understand it all well enough now, and we will never be in the position to collect enough data about a person's history to be 100% accurate every time. But we can already help make those decisions, using science, and we'll get better.

Not saying science should impose behaviour, but that knowledge can empower you to make better decisions.

[Jon Miller]

What is beauty, Mike?

JM

[Asher]

Traits that the opposite sex find more attractive in a mate. These traits usually are helpful in determining which men are likely to create strong offspring who themselves are more likely to reproduce.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does beauty always apply to individuals?

[Asher]

It's a different concept to find things aesthetically pleasing. Everyone knows that those are subject to personal tastes. Everyone knows personal tastes are developed through experiences.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Everyone knows that within 5 bn years a gas cloud became a human... give it another 5 and a human will become a god, sufficiently different from a human as a gas cloud is. As 10 bn years passed already on possibly infinite amount of places, as humans are, god is too... Who is god is open to discussion, but that there is one, is by far the most reasonable assumption.