What are the questions science can't answer?

[Anselm33]

Prompted by posts in a somewhat unsatisfying thread (“should science be secular?”), I’d like to pose the following: what questions can’t science answer? My own response (speaking as an old physicist) are the following: 1) values–what is good, what is beautiful. Science will never be able to tell us that the Brandenburg Concerto #3 is better than the Symphony Fantastique, or to go to the ridiculuous, dirty rap songs; 2) science can not answer why questions, particularly why science works, or in the words of Eugene Wigner, explain “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”; 3) there are other mysteries within the scientific project–to mention just one, quantum non-locality, which the French physicist/philosopher, Bernard D’Espagnat, is a manifestation of the veiled face of reality; 4) science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the mysteries of the Christian faith-the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Real Presence.

 

[Moonstruck888]

1. science can not answer why questions, particularly why science works, or in the words of Eugene Wigner, explain “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”;

Science doesn’t have to answer why it works. Anyone with half an eye can see it works. The very computer that you’re typing on is proof positive that science works.

 

[JohnDamian]

1. values–what is good, what is beautiful.

Absolutely; Science per se cannot ascribe a particular value to this or that thing; although by investigation it can observe what people consider to be values. However; in and of itself Science is unable to determine a particular modally distinct predicate such as “good” or “beautiful”; either in relative or singular terms.

Science will never be able to tell us that the Brandenburg Concerto #3 is better than the Symphony Fantastique

No; but good taste will be able to tell us that Berlioz is a much more emotional and beautiful artist.

1. science can not answer why questions, particularly why science works, or in the words of Eugene Wigner, explain “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”

That is correct; science cannot elaborate on matters of universals or “laws” per se; in fact the majority of modern science is built upon the nominalistic principle of* simple suppositio*; but Science itself cannot justify this; it can merely apply these ideas. So; Science takes an idea like the nominalism of the simple suppositio from the Philosopher Ockham; or the idea of “Scientific Method - analysis; observation; repetition” from the Natural Theologian Roger Bacon - but science is unable to verifty or justify the use of this in terms of truth; as aversed to practicality.

1. science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God

Certainly modern Science cannot do this; although in general Natural Theology and A posteriori reasoning can.

Furthermore; Science cannot prove or justify;

Itself
Existence of the universe
Existence of universals
Existence of external world
Reality of external world
Presence of other minds
Aesthetics in general
Ethics in general (See Critique of Judgement s87)
Any inferance from any thing that is not conceived within or as a simple thing per se (See Opus Oxoniense)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Science can never prove the existence of anything. It can only demonstrate that certain *experiences *exist, which could best be explained by the existence of atoms, forces, electrons, etc.

Just so, certain experiences exist which could best be explained by God. Just saying.

 

[awatkins69]

ProdigalSon makes a good point that science only deals with phenomena. Not the actual nature of being.

JohnDamian is mostly correct, except insofar as he states that Berlioz is superior to Bach, which all people know to be absurd.

 

[tonyrey]

Science doesn’t have to answer why it works. Anyone with half an eye can see it works. The very computer that you’re typing on is proof positive that science works.

The topic is not whether science works but what are its limitations - one of which is its inability to explain itself (which is hardly surprising!)

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Science doesn’t have to answer why it works. Anyone with half an eye can see it works. The very computer that you’re typing on is proof positive that science works.

Well, I personally am interested in the answer to the question, whether the question “has to be” answered or not.

 

[Anselm33]

Science doesn’t have to answer why it works. Anyone with half an eye can see it works. The very computer that you’re typing on is proof positive that science works.

I think that begs the question; as other posters have pointed out, it isn’t whether science works (and it does, within some fairly circumscribed limits), but what those limits might be–i.e. where it DOESN’T work.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

You can’t use the scientific method to prove the scientific method but I think you run into problems of verification everywhere. Karl Popper did some work on this. Strong empiricism is the idea that all things must have empirical proof in order to be believed, but this is itself an idea that cannot be empirically verified since it is an idea or criterion for belief. You run into similar problems with set theory…ie russell’s paradox.

 

[thegreypiper]

Remember too, Science ‘proves’ nothing; only mathematics ‘proves’ things. Science can only theorise and provide supporting evidence. Indeed one of Science 's proudest boasts is that it knows nothing for certain, and that today’s textbooks are tomorrow’s trash.

 

[AntiTheist]

Science can only answer questions about the world outside of our heads. As the OP notes, questions about the world inside our heads – what our values should be, what we should have for dinner, who is (in our opinion) the fairest of them all – are value judgments, not fact judgments, and they lie outside the scope of science.

I submit that a claim that a disembodied intelligence exists that intervenes in nature – assuming that you are claiming that this intelligence actualy exists outside of your mind, as a separate entity – is a claim about the world outside of our heads, and as such, should be subjected to the demands of evidence as much as any other claim.

Of course, by evidence, I mean “data points that properly support the claim.” If the claim is “I feel happy today” – a claim about my emotional state – then the only evidence I need to support that claim is my observation of my own subjective emotional state. But if the claim is about the world around me – like, “There is a conspiracy…everyone’s out to get me!” then my subjective paranoid feelings cannot serve as evidence for that claim.

That’s why your subjective experiences – the warm and fuzzy feelings in the pit of your stomach or the random little coincidences you’ve encountered – cannot be sufficient evidence for a claim about the world outside of your head.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The topic is not whether science works but what are its limitations - one of which is its inability to explain itself (which is hardly surprising!)

As long as it works, who cares if it can explain itself?

My automobile can’t explain itself, but it can still get me to work on time every morning.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I think that begs the question; as other posters have pointed out, it isn’t whether science works (and it does, within some fairly circumscribed limits), but what those limits might be–i.e. where it DOESN’T work.

It doesn’t work when you try to apply it to your personal superstitions about disembodied superbeings.

 

[Mimi]

]4) science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God

Certainly modern Science cannot do this; although in general Natural Theology and A posteriori reasoning can.

Science cannot explain why reason exists, or why humans are the only “animals” which have a highly developed reason. No other animal even comes close, even though (so we are told) that the great apes and homo sapiens share about 98% of the genetic code (as I recall).

IMO, even the fact that we can and do think about ourselves and our place in the universe is a kind of proof that we are unique in the world. Why isn’t there another ____-sapiens running around? (Big-foot hunters, please go to another thread…)There seems to be evidence that there were several other species at one time.

Science is science – it is necessary to “believe” that science can tell us verifiable truths about the physical universe, but it takes a sense of wonder about it, the spirit of curiosity/discovery which makes us humans strive to figure out all that there is to possibly know about us.

Science (and scientific research) must be ethical, but cannot (and probably should not) be the sole arbiter and definer of ethics.

Fire away - I’m just a musician, but am curious about this question, esp. how anti-religionists and atheists deal with these things.

Peace,
Mimi

 

[Moonstruck888]

Remember too, Science ‘proves’ nothing; only mathematics ‘proves’ things. Science can only theorise and provide supporting evidence. Indeed one of Science 's proudest boasts is that it knows nothing for certain, and that today’s textbooks are tomorrow’s trash.

That is an utterly vapid simplification. Good theories stand the test of time, forever. Bad theories do not. That is a strength, not a weakness.

That you cannot appreciate this says a lot more about your own limitations than it does about those of science.

 

[Modelsim]

Science can’t prove that the scientific method works with the scientific method.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Science can’t prove that the scientific method works with the scientific method.

So how do you explain all the scientific inventions like microprocessors and cavity magnetrons and fast breeder reactors if science doesn’t work?

Sheer blind luck?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So how do you explain all the scientific inventions like microprocessors and cavity magnetrons and fast breeder reactors if science doesn’t work?

Sheer blind luck?

Scientific results prove science useful, not true. Ancient scientists and astronomers predicted eclipses and storms accurately – does it follow that their ideas about astronomy were accurate?

I’m not saying that modern science isn’t true, by the way. Although, if the past is any indication, some things that scientists consider “conclusively true” today will turn out to be “conclusively false” tomorrow.

 

[JohnDamian]

As long as it works, who cares if it can explain itself?

My automobile can’t explain itself, but it can still get me to work on time every morning.

This is ignorance of the highest level.

If we do not understand how an epistimology works how do we know where; when; for how long we can apply it; what can we apply it to etc. etc. etc.

Your analagorical example is ridiculous; try this one for size;

“It doesn’t matter if my calculator can’t explain itself so long as it can give me the answer I need.”

This is just intellectual laziness; it is first important to work out how mathematics works before resorting to a calculator; if you don’t understand mathematical principles you will encounter trouble with the method once it is introducing complex elements.

 

[Modelsim]

So how do you explain all the scientific inventions like microprocessors and cavity magnetrons and fast breeder reactors if science doesn’t work?

Sheer blind luck?

My point was that there are other sources for knowledge than “pure” science. Simple observation and conclusions are not “pure” science in the sense of the word.