The Philosophy vs. Science Debate

Is this what you're referring to? (with Richard Dawkins?)

Just to clarify: As I understand it, there really isn't ever "something from nothing." See:

70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing

In our common experience, you can't get something for nothing. In the quantum realm, something really can emerge from nothing.

bigthink.com

Quote

If you take all of [the elementary particles] away, however, the “empty space” that remains isn’t quite empty in many physical senses.

For one, even in the absence of particles, quantum fields remain. Just as we cannot take the laws of physics away from the Universe, we cannot take the quantum fields that permeate the Universe away from it.

It's referenced in the article, but here also is a direct link to the animation of what "empty" space is actually doing:

Derek Leinweber

Quote from Don

Just to clarify: As I understand it, there really isn't ever "something from nothing."

Me too: Energy and energy fields and forces are not "nothing." (But I have no background in any of this.)

From the article Cassius linked in the opening post:

“Your example of homosexuality is a case in point. I agree that the main reasons for thinking it is wrong are linked with outmoded ways of thought. But the way you put it, it is because science shows us that homosexual behaviour "is completely natural", "has no apparent negative evolutionary impacts", is "biologically based" and "not harmful" that we can conclude it is "not innately 'wrong'". But this mixes up ethical and scientific forms of justification. Homosexuality is morally acceptable, but not for scientific reasons. Right and wrong are not simply matters of evolutionary impacts and what is natural. There have been claims, for example, that rape is both natural and has evolutionary advantages.”

This gets at the crux: the “is to ought” question. For someone to say that a given action has been shown to be biologically natural and prolific across populations is an “is” statement (empirical). To say that that also dictates an “ought” (or “ought not”) moves from the empirical to the normative – turning facts like biologically natural and prolific across populations and not harmful into the proper norms for ethics. But that itself is a philosophical move. It may not be wrong (Epicurean philosophy draws upon what is natural and not harmful) – but it is no longer science.

Cassius No, I think the perhaps contentious examples were just examples.