Thread: DOES SCIENCE SEEK THE TRUTH?

I say that the REAL objective of science is to always make what we "know" MORE ACCURATE.

Here is my reasoning: If we say it is "to obtain the Truth," then when we ultimately find it, there will be no more use for science! And if that means it does not exist, why are we working to achieve something that does not exist?

What we do know and consider "fact" or "the obvious" is just what is so accurate we do not now need to dwell on it any more. Sure, the Earth is globular not flat; but even so, it is not PERFECTLY globular. It is not perfectly spherical in shape. We are even now still improving the accuracy of its measurments.

Obviously, we will never achieve perfect or absolute "Truth." So, we should correct this flaw which infects the scientific establishment---this flaw in thinking. We are not after 'truth' but improving accuracy.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

I think the objective of science is to create a framework which as accurately as possible describes how the world works past, present, and future.
Newtonian mechanics for example may not be "correct" but it's a great framework for expressing a significant portion of how the world works from a physics perspective. But a more accurate framework in relativity has replaced it - this doesn't mean it was "wrong" and we were fools to believe it and it doesn't even mean it's not still useful today.

Science isn't here to prove anything. Furthermore the existance of something\anything perfect is wrong. The rules of chemestry, biology math..etc, are here to explain and exploit how things work.

Originally Posted by charles brough

Here is my reasoning: If we say it is "to obtain the Truth," then when we ultimately find it, there will be no more use for science! And if that means it does not exist, why are we working to achieve something that does not exist?

Sorry, Charles! Perhaps you were being ironic, but this is pure nonsense. Science is a process - it generates information and hopefully knowledge. Once that knowledge is obtained, even if science 'ends' the knowledge remains.
I I take a bus to Birmingham and the bus is later destroyed in a fire, I am still going to be in Birmingham.

In short, those lines of your were definitely not up to your usual standard of passable logic. 8)

In my opinion, science is another expression of what we do not understand (yet?).

I think the truth is IN us, and with science, as it is with religion, we try to give
this truth a meaning or interpretation.

We experience the truth that we have an urge inside of us (see Freud), and we want to give everything a meaning by attributing physical laws to it.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Science is a process - it generates information and hopefully knowledge. Once that knowledge is obtained, even if science 'ends' the knowledge remains.

I agree. Too often science is equated with research, but that's only the frontline. Behind it millions of people, which I would really call scientsts as well, are maintaining the level of knowledge we have. It's all nice and good to have a library full of knowledge, but if nobody has studied and understood it, it remains passive and unusable for society.

Furthermore, I would change the original question: Does Science seek the truth, and does Society seek the truth through science? I think #1 is a clear 'yes', but #2 is not so clear. Society enjoys 'pure science' as long as it's new and spectacular, but in the end we just want better cars and cheaper energy. So while scientists would always be willing to go a step further, society in general would only fund science as long as it's marginal benefit is sufficiently high.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by charles brough

Here is my reasoning: If we say it is "to obtain the Truth," then when we ultimately find it, there will be no more use for science! And if that means it does not exist, why are we working to achieve something that does not exist?

Sorry, Charles! Perhaps you were being ironic, but this is pure nonsense. Science is a process - it generates information and hopefully knowledge. Once that knowledge is obtained, even if science 'ends' the knowledge remains.
I I take a bus to Birmingham and the bus is later destroyed in a fire, I am still going to be in Birmingham.

In short, those lines of your were definitely not up to your usual standard of passable logic. 8)

What’s got into you Orphiolite? You missed the point entirely, the point that the two writers ahead of you understand and agreed with. Science's ending is about as inane as “The End of History.” So, logically, there will have to always be science because there can never be such a thing as “Truth.” Therefore, the aim of science is not to obtain “Truth” but a more accurate understanding of us, our world and the universe. What do you disagree about that?

Charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Originally Posted by charles brough

What’s got into you Orphiolite? You missed the point entirely, the point that the two writers ahead of you understand and agreed with. Science's ending is about as inane as “The End of History.”

You were using a reductio ad absurdum argument. I have no problem with that. However, the consitutent parts of that argument must still be logical. It seems to me they were not.

Originally Posted by charles brough

I say that the REAL objective of science is to always make what we "know" MORE ACCURATE.

Here is my reasoning: If we say it is "to obtain the Truth," then when we ultimately find it, there will be no more use for science! And if that means it does not exist, why are we working to achieve something that does not exist?

What we do know and consider "fact" or "the obvious" is just what is so accurate we do not now need to dwell on it any more. Sure, the Earth is globular not flat; but even so, it is not PERFECTLY globular. It is not perfectly spherical in shape. We are even now still improving the accuracy of its measurments.

Obviously, we will never achieve perfect or absolute "Truth." So, we should correct this flaw which infects the scientific establishment---this flaw in thinking. We are not after 'truth' but improving accuracy.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Science came from philosophy. In philosophy we search for the truth. Science is when in this search we find answers that can be tested through time and generally accepted by most people, or as some like to call it "proof". I believe that the basis of science is to find truth but, it does not mean that it will be found. I would hope that all scientists are also philosophers but I am afraid that I am wrong.

Science isn't here to prove anything. Furthermore the existance of something\anything perfect is wrong. The rules of chemestry, biology math..etc, are here to explain and exploit how things work.

Previously this can be the reason in the past. But recently, in most of the areas, the research is being done if there is some value (technology, military...) to be obtained. (as far as i see) So if you dont know what you will find at the end of your research and you can not connect your plan to previous works, do you think you can find funds for a project (If you did not prove yourself before (probably you need to be too much old for this ))?

Probably the problem is the fact that being a scientist became a job.

How can anything be perfect if nobody can win?

Philosophy is a state of mind without aim. It is an act of self indulgence. Philosophy is more akin to art or poetry than anything else. Contrary to popular belief a philosopher does not seek truth. Truth is not the objective - human expressionism is the objective. The purpose of philosophy is for one to express their emotional world views by way of abstract inquiry. As a result, philosophy is almost entirely a product of intellect. Philosophy is acutally quite easy. Anybody can do it and most people, to one extent or another, do.

To become a philosopher all you have to do is ask an inherent question regarding the state of a thing and/or all things and......and nothing. Thats it...your done. Ask a question, toy whith some possibilities and, if you wish, share your thoughts with others. Simple.

Science, however, is all about "Application". Asking a question is only the first of many steps to be taken. In science you apply yourself in finding an answer by way of hands on process or methodology. Science is really nothing more than an exaderation of logic. As a result, science is almost entirely a product of discipline. Unlike philosophy, science is not a pastime. Science = Work. So does science seek truth? No. Truth is too conclusive of a word. In one of the earlier post the term "Framwork" was used. That is an accurate discription. Framework, structure, blueprint, foundation. Science is all about starting somewhere, building something and watching it come crashing down only to improve upon it's place a remodified version. For every action there is a reaction and for every scientific process there is a fact. Yet a fact is "not" reality.

Instead, a fact is a measurement of reality. A fact has a begining and an end. Reality does not. A fact is like a scale model constructed by science, logic and reasoning that is meant to represent a single aspect of reality.

What we do here in this forum is somewhere in between philosophy and science.....but mostly just philosophy or what I like to refer to as "Bullsh**ing". And you know what? Thats okay. It's fun to exchange intellectual banter from time to time. It can also stimulate ones creativity and further inspire one to go out into the real world and apply themselves scientifically.

Originally Posted by Kolt

It can also stimulate ones creativity and further inspire one to go out into the real world and apply themselves scientifically.

Hah!
The real world is only determined by philosophical contemplation of its possible character. Science is an inherently restricted mode of enquiry that is a subset of philosphy. Philosophy, consequently and inevitably, has a larger scope and a greater potency than science ever can.
Please recall that until recently physics was called Natural Philosophy.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Hah! The real world is only determined by philosophical contemplation of its possible character. Science is an inherently restricted mode of enquiry that is a subset of philosphy. Philosophy, consequently and inevitably, has a larger scope and a greater potency than science ever can.
Please recall that until recently physics was called Natural Philosophy.

"The real world is only determined by philosophical contempla...blah blah blah"..... Flash-Talk. That kind of pseudointellectual jargon has never impressed me. How am I suppose to argue with that? "Row row row your boat........life is but a dream". Thats the equevalent of what your saying. And can I prove you wrong? No. Can you prove it right? No. There is no trial and error, there is no progress to be made, there is nothing to be gained. What's the point?

Your being idealistic and fashionable - I am just being practical.

Who knows how many times, since the dawn of man, philosophers have ponderd what it would be like to travel into outer space. Yet was it philosophy alone that put man on the moon? Negative.

A restricted mode of inquiry is whats necessary. It allows one to focus on the objective and not get wrapped up in abstract interpretations. Look, if nothing else, science simply means 'Taking action'. I've got nothing against the philisophical approach. I just see it for what it is. And I don't think one is necessarily better than the other.


Science = Baseball

Philosophy = Watching Baseball

Originally Posted by Kolt

"The real world is only determined by philosophical contempla...blah blah blah"..... Flash-Talk. That kind of pseudointellectual jargon has never impressed me. How am I suppose to argue with that? "Row row row your boat........life is but a dream". Thats the equevalent of what your saying. And can I prove you wrong? No. Can you prove it right? No. There is no trial and error, there is no progress to be made, there is nothing to be gained. What's the point?

That is the point!
Nothing can be proven. How is science helpful? Are we any better off now because of science than we were 1,000 years ago? We just look cleaner and have shinnier toys. We are not any better. Our increased knowledge has not benefited us. Why? Because we do not know what is abenefit to us. Does it matter if we live or die, is one better than the other, does life have a purpose. These are questions of philosophy and untill they are answered the discoveries of science are just a past time. I do not totally agree with what I just said because my true opinion is that science like philosphy is in search of truth and that technology is just a by-product of this search.

Originally Posted by Kolt

Science = Baseball

Philosophy = Watching Baseball

I don't like either.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

That is the point!
Nothing can be proven. How is science helpful? Are we any better off now because of science than we were 1,000 years ago? We just look cleaner and have shinnier toys. We are not any better. Our increased knowledge has not benefited us. Why? Because we do not know what is abenefit to us. Does it matter if we live or die, is one better than the other, does life have a purpose. These are questions of philosophy and untill they are answered the discoveries of science are just a past time. I do not totally agree with what I just said because my true opinion is that science like philosphy is in search of truth and that technology is just a by-product of this search.

Better? Is that what this is about? Which is better? What, exactly, would you define as "better" anyways"

As many as 214,000 lives were lost as a result of the atomic bomb. Definitly not a positive product of science. Yet do you know how many lives have been saved as a result of penicillin? Millions. Hundreds of millions. A hundred thousand million. Probably more. But like you said, penecillin is a pastime...right?

I don't even know what to say to you. "Does life have a purpose?" Tell me something DaBOB, When, exactly, do you think such a question "WILL" be answered. Our way of life has neither improved nor declined as a result of science nor philosophy. As you say, we are not any better. Yet "better" is not the point. Your making this out to be some kind of contest. Believe me when I tell you, there is no contest because there is no comparison. Sceince is a job - A series of tasks. Philosophy is a lifestyle. Apples and oranges.

And speaking of lifestyles, I can't help but think that your entire argument is in no way based on any kind of logic or reasoning.

You wear robes, you light insense, you sit yoga style, you collect coffeehouse books with titles like "Find Your Inner Peace" - "Your Dreams and What They Mean" - Dharma: The Path of Enlightenment", you meditate, you chant, you drink herbal tea, you listen to Enya and you spout off Morpheus/fortune cookie one liners like "See with your minds eye" - "To know the way is to know ones self" - "Your choice it not your choice but is the choice of your own fear. The fear to make your own choice" ......crap like that. Okay, so it's a caricature but the point remains the same. Philosophy is a lifestyle. You people, you don't seek truth, you seek trend. A way of giving yourself a kind of social identitiy.

And is there anything wrong with that? No, absolutely not. I'm not going to come into your backyard and start throwing eggs at you just because your wearing a Ghandi T-shirt. You praise philosophy and thats fine. I just don't see how you can hold the concept of -Asking a question- in such high regard while at the same time, scoffing away at the concept of -Working to find an answer-. Your value system is all screwed up here.

And in response to your original criticism and the original question of this thread - I can only say, once again, that science does NOT seek truth. It is not suppose to. Science is not some all knowing magical answer sheet. It is merely a process, nothing more. But without it what do you have? You have a bunch of people sitting around.....talking.....nothing more.

Talking is fine but it's also cheap. Eventually, you gotta' get your hands dirty.

First of all, unlike many here wish to think, I am not a hippie. I wish I had time to practice medetation because, if you know anything about it, it is about self control and focus, but I don't.

Buddha said: “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

I believe he is speaking of science.

I do not have a clue when any of those questions will be answered. Maybe when I die. As for science, while I recognize that it has got us no where, I agree that it is important. Sort of like a blind faith. It is the only tool we have and I intend to take full advantage of it. My point is that science spawned from the same questions as philosophy, and for some reason, now that we have science people seem to think philosophy is now useless.

If you go to work as a chemist than no your not searching for truth, you are coming up with the next sun tan lotion. But, the backbone purpose of science is the same as philosophy, and that is the search for truth. Whatever it may be.

Kolt seems to equate philosophy with metaphysics and the uselessly abstract just like I do. What draws us to this cracy site? I keep coming back because I find that, to my unrelenting surprise, people do not grasp what most of the best scientists discovered in the first third of the last century: that is, that there is no such thing as the absolute truth and all we in science can effectively accomplish is to keep improving the accuracy of what we, the human race, believe.

Apparently, it disillusions people. Students hate professors who telll them that, so the professors don't tell it (professors are often graded by their students---did you know?)

It also upset German science so much it contributed to the rationalizing of science Hitler built on. In France, they came up with pecular science movements---saying, for example, there are "multiple truths."

I like the thought of no truth, however! It explains why we will always need science! Since we can never know everything about anything or anything about everything, we will always need it to become more knowlegable. Science is here for us by its unrelenting effort to improve the accuracy of what we believe.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Originally Posted by Kolt

Better? Is that what this is about? Which is better? What, exactly, would you define as "better" anyways"

The definition of 'better' is one of the issues with which philosophy concerns itself. Given that you seem much exercised by the definition of 'better' and its impact on this discussion, might it not be that you are engaging in philosophy?

Originally Posted by Kolt

Your making this out to be some kind of contest. Believe me when I tell you, there is no contest because there is no comparison.

An interesting statement. You may recall your words from your opening post:

"Philosophy is a state of mind without aim. It is an act of self indulgence."

I suggest it is you who have declared this is a contest by uttering such a belligerent opinion on the matter. I have nothing against science. I certainly have far more credentials as a scientist than as a philosopher. This does not prevent me from recognising that most of what you have said on this topic is bilge water.

Originally Posted by Kolt

. Philosophy is a lifestyle. Apples and oranges.
..........
You wear robes, you light insense, you sit yoga style, you collect coffeehouse books with titles like "Find Your Inner Peace" - "Your Dreams and What They Mean" - Dharma: The Path of Enlightenment", you meditate, you chant, you drink herbal tea, you listen to Enya and you spout off Morpheus/fortune cookie one liners like "See with your minds eye" - "To know the way is to know ones self" - "Your choice it not your choice but is the choice of your own fear. The fear to make your own choice" ......crap like that..

What the flying flugle horn has this nonsense to do with philosphy. Have you read a single work by Hume, or Hobbes, or Descartes, or Kant, or Russell?
It appears to me you have no concept of what philosphy is. As such, further discussion with you on the matter is a pointless excursion in inanity. Wearing my erudite scientist's hat I might be tempted to continue it in order to determine statistically how ignorant you are on the topic. However, with my practical philosopher's hat firmly in place, I can see it would be a massive waste of time.

Adieu

Edit: there were several other points I would have made, but daBob had already covered them quite nicely.

Originally Posted by DaBob

Are we any better off now because of science than we were 1,000 years ago? We just look cleaner and have shinnier toys. We are not any better. Our increased knowledge has not benefited us

We, our average life expectancy since that time is probably over double. I'd call that a significant benefit. And people are able to live much more comfortably and do less work to accomplish far more with technology. We are able to keep in touch with loved ones despite having the freedom to spread out all over the world. We can learn about any topic we want, view the most treasued pieces of art in human history or listen to the most beautiful works of music ever recorded any time we want.
We have toilets. Toilets are great.
I don't see you shunning technology and living in the woods in a cabin you built yourself (without tools), that's for sure.
The list of benefits goes on and on and on.
Not every population in the world has all of these benefits of course, but that's not a fault OF those benefits.

i'd love to live in a log cabin built by myself, it's my idea of heaven

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by DaBob

Are we any better off now because of science than we were 1,000 years ago? We just look cleaner and have shinnier toys. We are not any better. Our increased knowledge has not benefited us

We, our average life expectancy since that time is probably over double. I'd call that a significant benefit. And people are able to live much more comfortably and do less work to accomplish far more with technology. We are able to keep in touch with loved ones despite having the freedom to spread out all over the world. We can learn about any topic we want, view the most treasued pieces of art in human history or listen to the most beautiful works of music ever recorded any time we want.
We have toilets. Toilets are great.
I don't see you shunning technology and living in the woods in a cabin you built yourself (without tools), that's for sure.
The list of benefits goes on and on and on.
Not every population in the world has all of these benefits of course, but that's not a fault OF those benefits.

You missied the point entirely. The point is: what is better? If the only reason for us to live is to continue living (which in itself isn't even a full reason) than we are no better off now than we were before. Like I said, everything is just more pretty and easy, but what is to say that is any better. It is difficult to explain what I am trying to say so I hope you understand.

-EDIT-
I just thought of an arguement that might help make my point. Who does better for the world: and nuclear physicist or a stoner that lives with his parents? Well you would naturally thin the physicist and even I would have to agree but, I agree out of faith. The physicist is just going to die like the stoner, so how is he any better off? He makes a contribution to the world. But, the people who take advantage of that contribution are also going to die and so on. In the end (if there is an end) it is meaningless as to which life style is better. Do you understand now?

---

Thank you Ophiolite for you post. I was going to respond to the one you responded to but I think you made all the points I would have (plus some) and did it in a much more eloquent manner than I could have.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

[
What the flying flugle horn has this nonsense to do with philosphy. Have you read a single work by Hume, or Hobbes, or Descartes, or Kant, or Russell?
It appears to me you have no concept of what philosphy is. As such, further discussion with you on the matter is a pointless excursion in inanity. Wearing my erudite scientist's hat I might be tempted to continue it in order to determine statistically how ignorant you are on the topic. However, with my practical philosopher's hat firmly in place, I can see it would be a massive waste of time.

Adieu

Edit: there were several other points I would have made, but daBob had already covered them quite nicely.

Bilge water?...Flying flugle horn?......Ophiolite, You never told me you were a poet.

I am also very much impressed by your assortment of 'Magic Hats' I once had a cape of invisibility. It didn't work though.

Your a funny guy Ophi'. I really dig ya'.

I meant what I said about philosophy being an act of self indulgence. I also think that eating a chocolate cake is an act of self indulgence. Yet I don't think that either act is necessarily bad. I just see it as taking time to enjoy the finer things in life. If you happen to pinpoint moments in my message blogs where I become philisophical then good for you and good for me too. Because, as I have said before, I have nothing against philosophy. To wax philisophical is okay. In fact, it's more than okay, it's inevitable. It's Human nature.

I am going to do my best here to take my opinion on this matter and break it down to it's most basic rudimentary meaning.

Different people want different things. Different people are interested in different things. You people are perhaps driven by results. Technology, modern day medicine, world wide communications, space exploration. These are just a few examples of what could be seen as significant results of science. Yet you may see these results as being somewhat trivial, temporary or even arbitrary. A kind of by-product of human existence that, in some ways, makes our lives more convenient or may even give us a few more bits of information about the natural world but ultimately never gives us any real meaning as to who we are or why we are here.

You might say that there is a deeper and even more profound truth to the univers and our existense with in it. That there is an inherent mystery as to the nature of ones self. And that if such a truth is to ever be discovered - if such a mystery is to ever be solved, it will not be a result of science but a result of philosophy.

"Don't be too proud of this technilogical terror you've constructed.
The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force"
Darth Vader

Me personally, I would be inclined to agree with both you and Lord Vader. Tech-toys and inoculations aside, our status of well being is no greater today than it was 500, 1000, 1500, or even 35000 years ago. No, science-has-not-given-us-meaning.

Science does not give us incorrect results - Science merely gives us incomplete results.

Now, here comes the curveball - You people are driven by results. I am not. As far as I am concerned (Note: This is where I become philisophical) It is the very concept of the "Result" itself that I find to be somewhat trivial. I am not driven by results I am driven by process. Process as in - An act of doing. Wether valid or invalid, answers and end results are temporary.

Philosophy is not an incorrect process - Philosophy is merely an incomplete process.

Philosophy is about contemplating questions and contemplating answers. But science is what happens in between. It's the creamy filling. So when I tell you that I favor one over the other I am not saying that the other is crap. To me, philosophy is what you do when your not applying hands on methods of trial and error.

I just like doing stuff. How about that.


Adieu....no wait......I'm from California....


Adios!

Originally Posted by DaBOB

You missied the point entirely. The point is: what is better? If the only reason for us to live is to continue living (which in itself isn't even a full reason) than we are no better off now than we were before. Like I said, everything is just more pretty and easy, but what is to say that is any better. It is difficult to explain what I am trying to say so I hope you understand.

-EDIT-
I just thought of an arguement that might help make my point. Who does better for the world: and nuclear physicist or a stoner that lives with his parents? Well you would naturally thin the physicist and even I would have to agree but, I agree out of faith. The physicist is just going to die like the stoner, so how is he any better off? He makes a contribution to the world. But, the people who take advantage of that contribution are also going to die and so on. In the end (if there is an end) it is meaningless as to which life style is better. Do you understand now?

I still must be missing your point. I feel that living twice as long and having toilets (to sum up) constitutes as "benefits" or "better" no matter how you choose to define it. I'm not sure how "everybody dies, though" should affect that opinion. I think I'm not getting your point.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

I still must be missing your point. I feel that living twice as long and having toilets (to sum up) constitutes as "benefits" or "better" no matter how you choose to define it. I'm not sure how "everybody dies, though" should affect that opinion. I think I'm not getting your point.

Kolt, if I may borrow your words...

Originally Posted by Kolt

Different people want different things. Different people are interested in different things. You people are perhaps driven by results. Technology, modern day medicine, world wide communications, space exploration. These are just a few examples of what could be seen as significant results of science. Yet you may see these results as being somewhat trivial, temporary or even arbitrary. A kind of by-product of human existence that, in some ways, makes our lives more convenient or may even give us a few more bits of information about the natural world but ultimately never gives us any real meaning as to who we are or why we are here.

This is very much what I am saying.

Kolt, I think I can agree with you. I also like to do. But I feel that the thinking is just as important, not to mention the fact that I sometimes can't seem to stop the thinking anyways. I think that it is the questions of philosophy that often drive science. Or maybe it is the preceding questions of science thay stimulate philosphy and then use science to find an answer.
e.g. How can I make a hotter fire? (preceding question) ---> What is fire? (philosophy) ---> Experimentation (science) ---> Fire is light. (answer)

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Neutrino

I still must be missing your point. I feel that living twice as long and having toilets (to sum up) constitutes as "benefits" or "better" no matter how you choose to define it. I'm not sure how "everybody dies, though" should affect that opinion. I think I'm not getting your point.

Kolt, if I may borrow your words...

Originally Posted by Kolt

Different people want different things. Different people are interested in different things. You people are perhaps driven by results. Technology, modern day medicine, world wide communications, space exploration. These are just a few examples of what could be seen as significant results of science. Yet you may see these results as being somewhat trivial, temporary or even arbitrary. A kind of by-product of human existence that, in some ways, makes our lives more convenient or may even give us a few more bits of information about the natural world but ultimately never gives us any real meaning as to who we are or why we are here.

This is very much what I am saying.

Kolt, I think I can agree with you. I also like to do. But I feel that the thinking is just as important, not to mention the fact that I sometimes can't seem to stop the thinking anyways. I think that it is the questions of philosophy that often drive science. Or maybe it is the preceding questions of science thay stimulate philosphy and then use science to find an answer.
e.g. How can I make a hotter fire? (preceding question) ---> What is fire? (philosophy) ---> Experimentation (science) ---> Fire is light. (answer)

So if modern life isn't better because it isn't answering "who we are or why we are here" is THAT your definition of benefits? So nothing provides benefit unless it answers those questions? That's such a narrow definition as to render the terms pretty much meaningless. Those questions are also quite probably unaswerable. "Who we are" is pretty much too vague to even attempt. "Why we are here" is simple enough - evolution. If that is too "how" and not enough "why" for you, then again that's an impossible question to answer and there is nothing you would accept as "better".
But, to me, toliets and being alive are better than squatting behind a rock and dying at the ripe old age of 24 regardless of "who we are and why we are here"
I guess your point just seems like philisophical empty-speak to me. I don't mean that in an insulting way, it just seems like a point that doesn't accomplish anything.

I'm not saying anything is better or worse. I am just pointing out that we don't know if it is. Most modern day people are so lost in their ego they are almost not even conscious. This is largely do to materialism. These egos make us think things like a fluffy couch is better than a stiff one etc. What I am saying is that, in the end, it makes no difference either way as to what we think, or want to think, is better. A pure mind is non-judgemental (if that is possible). Nothing would be better or worse but instead understood for what it is.

I don't think these questions of who or what we are or what our purpose is needs to be answered. I don't even know if they can be answered. I never said that nothing provides benefit unless those questions were answered.

What makes you any more benefited than a starving child in the middle of Africa? You're both gonna die. Aren't you?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

What makes you any more benefited than a starving child in the middle of Africa? You're both gonna die. Aren't you?

Yes, but have you ever heard of pain? It's not pleasant. People don't like experiencing it in general. People don't like being starving, having diseases, being freezing, being in pain, and so on. So, again, throwing out "everyone dies so nothing else matters" seems tremendously useless to me. Life is all we have and all we know - the qualify of our entire existence counts for something, I think.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by DaBOB

What makes you any more benefited than a starving child in the middle of Africa? You're both gonna die. Aren't you?

Yes, but have you ever heard of pain? It's not pleasant. People don't like experiencing it in general. People don't like being starving, having diseases, being freezing, being in pain, and so on. So, again, throwing out "everyone dies so nothing else matters" seems tremendously useless to me. Life is all we have and all we know - the qualify of our entire existence counts for something, I think.

Dying is all your happiness with a minus sign on it. You cannot loose anything when you're dead, true. But you can't have anything either, hence you must have lost it when you were alive.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by DaBOB

What makes you any more benefited than a starving child in the middle of Africa? You're both gonna die. Aren't you?

Yes, but have you ever heard of pain? It's not pleasant. People don't like experiencing it in general. People don't like being starving, having diseases, being freezing, being in pain, and so on. So, again, throwing out "everyone dies so nothing else matters" seems tremendously useless to me. Life is all we have and all we know - the qualify of our entire existence counts for something, I think.

The reason peolpe suffer from pain is because of judgement. Your cells don't care. The feeling of pain is just a feeling, the only ones that make it good or bad, pleasure or suffering is us. Pain indicates when something is stressed, taken damage, etc. Pain is even a sign of healing, e.g. pain caused by swelling. Being a martial artist I know that pain is in fact very important and yet at the same time I nearly never suffer from it. Sadly, many people are uneducated or lack the knowledge of such ideas and thus, like a lemming, will do as others and believe that pain is suffering, I know because I do it myself somtimes (most do). In the end we don't know what is good or bad. Therefor I do not know whether it is good or bad to cast judgement on things but I often find that it benefits (whatever that means) me to not do so. It is up to the individual to find meaning in his/her own life.

Originally Posted by DaBob

The reason peolpe suffer from pain is because of judgement. Your cells don't care. The feeling of pain is just a feeling, the only ones that make it good or bad, pleasure or suffering is us. Pain indicates when something is stressed, taken damage, etc. Pain is even a sign of healing, e.g. pain caused by swelling. Being a martial artist I know that pain is in fact very important and yet at the same time I nearly never suffer from it. Sadly, many people are uneducated or lack the knowledge of such ideas and thus, like a lemming, will do as others and believe that pain is suffering, I know because I do it myself somtimes (most do). In the end we don't know what is good or bad. Therefor I do not know whether it is good or bad to cast judgement on things but I often find that it benefits (whatever that means) me to not do so. It is up to the individual to find meaning in his/her own life.

I'm sure if I strapped you to the rack or made an incision in your belly without anesthesia you'd change your tune in a hurry about the nature of pain. I will also go out on a limb and say that you keep the temperature in your dwelling at a reasonably comfortable level, that you eat a reasonable amount of food, and that you appreciate the roof over your head keeping the rain and snow off your face as you sleep. It's to the point of ridiculous to me that someone would argue that pain is only to be avoided because of societal norms or some such.