Raymond Tallis - What are the Scope and Limits of Science?

How far can science go? How much can science discover? Must all truth come from science? Are there boundaries to science? Are there truths, real truths, beyond science? Not just truths beyond today’s science, but beyond science in principle forever?

Raymond C. Tallis is a a retired physician and neuroscientist from Great Britain. His resume boasts titles like philosopher, poet and novelist. He is also a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal College of Physicians and Royal Society of Arts.

Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[tomatomanXD]

incredible camera work on this, dramatic, stunning

[CarlosElio]

Tallis at 4' 02": "The experience of color is absolutely universal." What about blindness or even color blindness? What authority does Tallis have to say that the experience is universal?
RLK is right when he notes that the stuff outside science : emotions, feelings, sensations of color, etc. are context-dependent whereas the stuff science "dedicates its gaze to" are free of context and therefore can generate agreement among people from different contexts. Science is ineluctably constrained by the degrees of freedom of the objects/subjects it studies. Every photon is identical to every other photons, hence we can discover universal laws. Every human tragedy is unique, hence there can be no universal laws. Science does not concern itself with human tragedy. It is true that science leaves out objects/subjects with many degrees of freedom because they are oblivious to universal laws.
Humans cannot fly like birds. Any discussion about the impossibility of human fly is superfluous. Science does very well what it is supposed to do.

[vanikaghajanyan]

6:20
Yes!
"The process of scientific discovery is, in essence, a continuous escape from miracles.“(Einstein).

[markpmar]

It's fair to say that science shouldn't draw metaphysical conclusions based solely on the study of objects and materials in all their forms. But he does not actually say what "metaphysical conclusions" are being drawn by science to which he objects. He brings up "red" and color in general. It's also fair to say that color is real but it does not exist and that it is inferred, cross-culturally or otherwise. What exists is a particular frequency of the electro-magnetic spectrum that human eyes can detect and the human brain can process and the human mind can experience as qualia. What came first, qualia or the EM spectrum?

[PaulHoward]

Science that reduces concepts to things discards meanings and is thereby limited to producing useful misunderstandings.

[startup]

Very interesting ideas but …..The constantly moving cameras are an enormous distraction. Also, would have been a great idea to get rid of that annoying tapping before rolling.

[jamesruscheinski]

might observation, consciousness and maybe subjectivity and experience need to be looked into in other ways as well as science?

[laszlosandor]

Right on! Crying foul is a good thang👍🏽

[dongshengdi]

It has nothing to do with science.
Only greed and curiosity.
That's why we have smartphones, not because of science but because of greed, curiosity and necessity.
Totally nothing to do with science

[bretnetherton]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[kallianpublico]

Has science replaced consciousness with narration? Replaced intention with an illusion of reality: a story of reality based on causation instead of intention? After all what is causation? According to Hume it is nothing but a pretext, an excuse for consistency rather than the source of consistency: consciousness. Science has replaced eyes and minds with light and photons. No?
Instead of the individual person as the experiencer of reality, a narrator of reality has taken his/her place: science. Instead of the subjective observer science prefers the objective narrator. Instead of stream of consciousness, first person narrator, science is the omniscient third person narrator. Why? Because of electricity, genetics and space travel? Are they a substitute for health? While science can replace fruits and vegetables can they replace our physical biology? To what end...God Emporor of Dune?

Best episode yet.

Exsanguinate?

[caiusKeys]

cf. "The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics" by DEREK ABBOTT (2013)

[georgepelton]

I have to comment that I am not impressed by Raymond Tallis or his logic. The host, Robert Kuhn, does a great job with his questions and responses, as usual. Most of the guests on this channel are the top experts in their fields, and listening to them is a wonderful and educational opportunity.

[eksffa]

Freaking irritating background sounds triggers the hell out of me in this video. Some editing tender pls 😆

[esorse]

Material consciousness' complement as biological unresponsiveness may also require the idea for comprehension.

[pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds]

The guy is confused, I do science strictly as the physics of nature without mathematics.

[jamesruscheinski]

how are coordinates, mathematics and science relating to observer beyond humanity?

[davidrandell]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

[richardsylvanus]

What's that constant tapping noise?

[whitefiddle]

Now this--finally--is worth serious thought. In spite of the fact that Kuhn persists in his materialist superstitions, there is more to the human experience than scientifically measurable things.

Deal with it!