Concerning the original question: David Hume made two criticisms of science in the 18th century that can easily be converted to simple questions for the teacher's exercise.
1. What causes any one event?
2. What is one event that will happen tomorrow?
1. Science cannot determine causation. Since science is based solely on observation of physical events, it cannot observe that any one event causes another. There is no instrument that can detect cause, and this means that science cannot determine it. I can see color, feel solid objects, and a thermometer can measure temperature, but there is no measurement of cause. An example can make this more clear: A magnet is held near iron filings, and the filings move.
With what do you observe the causation? Many people would say that if this experiment was repeated enough times, you could know that the magnet caused the filings to move. Hume says, what if it was mere coincidence that the filings moved each time that the magnet was brought near? The two events just happened to occur at the same time, with no causation between the two. Science cannot prove or disprove the causation. Hume says that as humans, we are in the habit of assuming causation when two things happen together over and over (constant conjunction). This habit has nothing to do with science, and is merely something the human mind does. The interesting thing about this is that people try claim that science can determine causation, which is simply not true.
2. It is a logical fallacy to predict the future based on events observed in the past. This is similar to point number 1. Perhaps it is just coincidence that the iron filings moved towards the magnet every day for the past 100 years, and tomorrow that will no longer be true. What says that it will happen again in the future? It is nothing more than an assumption of the observer. So, you cannot prove (with science, or anything else) any prediction you make. However, we do this all the time, because tends to work.
A third question of my own is merely a superset of the first question, and is
3. Does anything non-physical exist?
Since science can only make observations of physical phenomena, it simply cannot address this question. Maybe non-physical things exist, maybe they don't, that's beside the point. The point is that science cannot provide us with an answer to the question. I find it interesting that some people say "Science can't say anything about non-physical things, therefore they don't exist." It would seem more logical to recognize that this is simply a limitation of science, and realize that if an answer is to be found, it must be sought elsewhere.
1. What causes any one event?
2. What is one event that will happen tomorrow?
1. Science cannot determine causation. Since science is based solely on observation of physical events, it cannot observe that any one event causes another. There is no instrument that can detect cause, and this means that science cannot determine it. I can see color, feel solid objects, and a thermometer can measure temperature, but there is no measurement of cause. An example can make this more clear: A magnet is held near iron filings, and the filings move.
With what do you observe the causation? Many people would say that if this experiment was repeated enough times, you could know that the magnet caused the filings to move. Hume says, what if it was mere coincidence that the filings moved each time that the magnet was brought near? The two events just happened to occur at the same time, with no causation between the two. Science cannot prove or disprove the causation. Hume says that as humans, we are in the habit of assuming causation when two things happen together over and over (constant conjunction). This habit has nothing to do with science, and is merely something the human mind does. The interesting thing about this is that people try claim that science can determine causation, which is simply not true.
2. It is a logical fallacy to predict the future based on events observed in the past. This is similar to point number 1. Perhaps it is just coincidence that the iron filings moved towards the magnet every day for the past 100 years, and tomorrow that will no longer be true. What says that it will happen again in the future? It is nothing more than an assumption of the observer. So, you cannot prove (with science, or anything else) any prediction you make. However, we do this all the time, because tends to work.
A third question of my own is merely a superset of the first question, and is
3. Does anything non-physical exist?
Since science can only make observations of physical phenomena, it simply cannot address this question. Maybe non-physical things exist, maybe they don't, that's beside the point. The point is that science cannot provide us with an answer to the question. I find it interesting that some people say "Science can't say anything about non-physical things, therefore they don't exist." It would seem more logical to recognize that this is simply a limitation of science, and realize that if an answer is to be found, it must be sought elsewhere.
Facebook
Twitter