Some people believe that science (I refer to “Exact science”) can (at least some day) explain everything.
I however believe that science has inherent limitations which cannot be ignored.
Science deals with measurable things which can be replicated in a lab while most important things in life are things which cannot be measured and cannot be replicated in a lab. Other limitations exist as well. Take Logic for example. Gödel proved that it has limits. So how can we say that Science, which is based on Logic, can find EVERYTHING? Science is also based on senses. And our senses are indeed very very limited. And let us not forget that in general any system which is based on axioms (which are set based on… nothing?) like science is, has limitations due to the very fact that they use these axioms.
I don’t think that ‘science’ as a tool for discovering things about the universe is necessarily capable of discovering everything.
That being said, I think that anything not discoverable via science or reason or other closely related forms of human advancement is not discoverable at all.
There are other tools for discovering things, like intuition and fantasy.
If you think about it, where are axioms based upon? On the intuition of genious people with enough insight so as to find these “truths” even without experimental data at hand…
Would you say, then that some things are discoverable through reason that are not discoverable through science? I am looking at that ‘or’. Also would you say you arrived at this belief - in the second sentence - via science, reason or intuition (or a combination of two or more).
I think it means that science should just be one of the tools we use to understand the world. Some people might get religious, others scientific, some might attempt to understand the world in other ways. But like most good strains of weed, almost everyone questioned long enough is a little bit of each. Nothing to worry about man this kind of stuff regulates itself.
True. But today many people think of science as the new “religion” that is replacing the old one. And this is something we should be careful of. We should not replace religion nor we should believe in the total power of science.
And it is not “religious OR scientific”. Many scientists are religious too. And many religious persons believe in science…
But science ir (or tries to be) based on Logic.
And how do you know that all things can be explained through Logic? Is that a pure BELIEF, or something “proven”?
PS. And I do not even touch the “and actually have been” quote yet. I believe this is an over-statement.
Yes Science “tries” to be based on Logic, but they are not logicians, merely presumptuous mathematicians.
It takes a clear minded logician to see that there is no choice but for all things to be explainable through logic, else you are always thinking that there are other options that don’t really exist.
It is severely naive but common, to believe that the entire world only knows of what you are aware of.
There are no actual mysteries in the world (other than perhaps what to do with 6.5 billion insane people).
Because we may find ways to work around the limits of logic.
As of now, we postulate that logic is mathematically based, which it is not.
Once i saw a movie, where some buisness man would refer to truck getting stuck i a tunnelopening, the workers ponderd how to get it free, when a little girl simply said to let out air of the tires. A logically solution, not mathematically based, there are endless of such logical solutions made every day, which isn’t at all mathematically, but we tend to uncritically parrot what others tells us, which is why we need “anarchists” who doesn’t care about rules and formallity.
True scientists are actually anarchists of knowledge (see Feyerabend). Mathematics are just tha language they use to express themselves.
True science must be illogical, if logical is the norm which has to be overcome.
And how would you know there are no mysteries? What do you mean?
Without logic, there is no Science at all. And thus no scientist.
There are no mysteries because every rational question concerning the fundamental constructs have been answered.
They just haven’t sent the you the memo.
The world of science must maintain an image of not knowing everything for the same reason the world of medicine must maintain the image of not knowing how to cure an illness, but merely treat its symptoms… money.
So was Parmenides a fundamentalist?
And what about the Forst Cause? How have we “proved” that the Universe existed for ever?
If Godel proved that time does not exist, how can things change? Is time based on “change” or vice versa?
Sure I understand that you express your personal opinions on things.
Do you think one can have such an authority so as to persuade others on the correctness of his personal opinions?