The fundamental limitation of the scientific method is that science is limited to the observable universe. The methods of science, which you and we all know about, are very potent when it comes to the things we can know about, but there are things we cannot know about (be certain about using the scientific method). For just one example, science cannot know what happened to cause the Big Bang. Science also cannot know for a certainty how life first came into being. Science cannot know if there exist other universes. The scientific method cannot give me wisdom, nor an appreciation of the arts and literature. Science cannot address the question of whether we have a soul and whether we are meant to live forever. Science cannot say anything for certain about the nature of God because God, not being observable, is not subject to being studied by the scientific method. These are all types of knowledge that science is limited to answering questions about.
I wrote a paper on the Philosophy of Natural Science about 40 years ago.It contains as many pages and outlines the nature of scientific truth. It was an undergrad course, but one in which I got a 4/4. I’m sure I haven’t thrown it out. It will take a long time to locate it and longer to scan, cut and paste it for your your perusal. But, you say you do not want a treatise.
If you know anything about science, you should know its limitations. But this implies some knowledge of what exists outside the realm of science.
Alright, in your own words:
For the Old Greeks it was observation and induction, and even they used reasoning as well.
Yes, so far so good. Why stop here? Please go on.
The word “universe” means “everything that exists”. So to speak of this as a limitation makes no sense.
Unfortunately I have no idea what YOU know about it, that is why I started the whole thread.
Who says that the Big Bang was “caused”? It is true that our current knowledge of physics cannot penetrate the very first splits of seconds, but that is not an absolute limitation.
It has a pretty good understanding of what might have happened. But again this is a question about the PAST, which does not exist any more. It might be of slight interest, nothing more. It is true that science cannot disclose what Julius Caesar had for breakfast on the day he was killed, but that is not a limitation either.
The appreciation of arts and literature are subjective categories. Some people find Wagner’s music awe-inspiring, other people cannot stand it. Some males prefer tall, blond women, other like chubby, brown ones. To ask “why” is such a difference is another irrelevant question. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Since there is absolutely no evidence of “soul” or God, these questions are irrelevant. You could say that science is impotent to say anything about the Loch Ness monster, or about the mating rituals of leprechauns, but it is not a limitation of science that is cannot answer nonsensical questions. Just because you believe in God, angels and demons it is not a legitimate question to ask: “how many angels would fit on the tip of a needle”, or "what kind of weapons did the fallen angels use in the assumed battle, before they were thrown out from heaven. Though I have to mention that exorcists claim to be able to detect demons, and also claim to be able to force them out of the body they “took over”. So, beware: the church maintains these exorcists, so the church claims that there is some physical method to observe the existence of supernatural beings and also perform some rituals to influence the behavior of supernatural beings.
Again, what limitations? The natural sciences work with the OBJECTIVE universe. That is all. It does not care about the subjective reaction to the objective reality. There is no such THING as beauty, or justice. These are not objectively existing ontological objects.
What is this nonsense of “scientism”? No materialist worthy of his salt maintains that everything must be placed on a scale, or be subjected to a litmus test. At the bare minimum, the abstract “sciences”, like mathematics are NOT subject to the so-called “scientific method”… which has never been defined by YOU.
It is not just very bad form, but also against the forum rules to answer a question with a question. Since you claim to be a scientist, you should be in an excellent position to describe what the scientific method is, and also point out its alleged “limitations”. But that is OK. I will answer below.
I don’t see any. The scientific method is able to answer any questions (in theory, of course) which it is supposed to answer. It is not supposed to answer nonsensical or subjective questions. It is only supposed to answer questions about the objective reality.
It is not that complicated. The so-called abstract or (axiomatic) sciences are really simple: “a proposition is true if it is the logical corollary of the axioms”. Of course the sequence of the steps can be extremely complicated, but the METHOD is awfully simple. So much for the deductive method. The process itself is perfectly simple.
Thank you for demonstrating the limitations of science.
What questions are the scientific method unable to answers? I can think of a few. Why are these nonsensical? What is the scientific reason for declaring them so?
How do you know that the scientific method can answer all questions about objective reality?
I’m going to sit back and watch this thread, but I will address this. The universe encompasses every physical thing that exists. Of course, you take this to mean everything that exists, but a Catholic will disagree. Just sayin’.
uch:
What you have just said here is not science. You are demonstrating by your own words some philosophical insights formulating the scientific method. Please learn to distinguish between philosophy and science. There are too many things we know, and seek to know, that cannot be tested by the scientific method. Scientism is the belief that nothing can be known except by the scientific method. Only a person who is not a scientist could be taken in by this logic. A real scientist knows, for example, that wisdom is a far greater sport to engage in than science. Some scientists have knowledge but are rather lacking in wisdom. A scientist who might have said we should build nuclear weapons because we can would have been inferior to a scientist who might have said we should not build atomic weapons because we will be opening a Pandora’s box of Armageddon.
In a 1998 statement titled Teaching about Evolution and Science, the American National Academy of Sciences said:
Science only looks at the natural physical world and tries to explain everything through natural causes. I think that has been highlighted by a couple of posters.
You are most welcome. Since I do not believe that “science” can explain everything we are not “enemies” - so to speak.
I can, too - and I did in my post. A question which has no answer is - by definition - not worth to ask - hence nonsensical.
You may have misunderstood me. There are subjective aspects of the objective reality (like beauty) which are not subject to ANY method.
No problem. I agree that concepts “exist” but they do not exist as ontological objects.
“Beauty” is a concept and it expresses one’s **personal appreciation **of something physical. It does not exist as an objective, ontological object.
Wisdom is just another subjective category. I wonder if you can give an objective definition of “wisdom”.
Sure thing. Science can say nothing about the “essence” of seven-headed, fire breathing dragons either - nor can it describe the properties of the “invisible pink unicorns”. Science can say nothing about the personal preferences of “Joe Schmoe” who prefers his steak medium rare. Science has nothing to say about the “SUB-natural” either. That is not a limitation of science, it is the problem for those who assert that supernatural or subnatural existence is somehow “real”.
Where did I claim that? Please quote my words back to me, and I will gladly eat crow… But for the time being I must point out that you did not answer my question. Of course you are under no obligation to answer, but it would be appreciated.
Well said. And from methodological naturalism it follows quite plausibly the assumption of philosophical naturalism. After all if there is no need to assume anything “supernatural”, then why should one assume its existence?
I am just writing a thesis on that very question “Does methodological naturalism entail ontological naturalism?”.
There is no small bit of equivocating going on here.
The two scenarios, an atheistic world and a world created by God, are indistinguishable from a strictly phenomenological point of view, rare miracles with physical manifestations aside. Thus, science does not automatically favor metaphysical naturalism, i.e. nature is all there is. Certainly, the atheist will say: Science shows that nature is self-sufficient, therefore, in extrapolation, if we do not need any outside explanation for what we observe in nature, we also we do not need any outside explanation of nature itself: a wider nature generated nature (our universe). However, this does not take into account the possible (and by the theist assumed) scenario that God created our self-sufficient and self-developing nature. Thus, the just mentioned atheist position is not a straightforward logical conclusion as in: “A follows from B, and since we arrive at B, C automatically follows.”
The two scenarios, an atheistic world and a world created by God, are indistinguishable from a strictly phenomenological point of view, rare miracles with physical manifestations aside. Thus, science does not automatically favor metaphysical naturalism, i.e. nature is all there is. Certainly, the atheist will say: Science shows that nature is self-sufficient, therefore, in extrapolation, if we do not need any outside explanation for what we observe in nature, we also we do not need any outside explanation of nature itself: a wider nature generated nature (our universe). However, this does not take into account the possible (and by the theist assumed) scenario that God created our self-sufficient and self-developing nature. Thus, the just mentioned atheist position is not a straightforward logical conclusion as in: “A follows from B, and since we arrive at B, C automatically follows.”
should have been, “B follows from A,…”