Three Fundamental Limitations of Modern Science

[Immortal4life]

Here is an interesting series of articles which explain some limitations of modern science which it can not overcome-

 

Part 1- A limitation in modern physics-

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/36070/

 

Part 2- A Limitation in Formal Logic

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/36419/

 

Part 3- A limitation in philosophy-

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/36947/

 

Part 4- Common issues of the limitations-

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/37424/

[Marblehead]

But I will still rely on science to offer me possible answers and explanations.

[wearydreamer]

Quite a big article to explain fundamental limitation.

 

Logic needs an assumed starting point (axiom) to deduce the theory from. Fundamental limitation of any logical theory is that it needs an axiom to start with, which is always assumed (to be self evident in science).

 

No Axiom(s)=> no logical deduction => no logical theory

 

It is interesting to see that even for above statement to be logical, there has to an assumed axiom for the statement to hold. And there is. It is the most subtle one.

 

 

[Encephalon]

Toward what end is this ongoing critique of modern science? Could the subject of scientism be your area of concern? What are you trying to accomplish with these posts?

[Otis]

I don't think there's any question that there are limitations in knowledge, whether it be Godel's Incompleteness, or the limitations of having 5 senses and a point of view.

 

But this is not something that science denies, nor something that should refute science.

 

This just says to all of us: be extremely careful when we choose to tag our opinion with the special flag "knowledge". Don't hold too tightly to any truths, and make sure that the truths that we do rely on, are as reasonable and repeatable, as possible.

 

I don't see these limitations as being a reason to doubt science per se, but rather to doubt ALL of my beliefs, to keep my perspective fresh and unconstrained by unnecessary belief. Science, at least, thoroughly tests its hypotheses, whereas most theories enter my consciousness from much less thorough sources.

 

So, true, we should not be fundamentalist in our allegiance to science, for fundamentalism is always self-blinding. But that doesn't mean that science isn't still (by far) the best game in town, when it comes to the question of knowledge.

[joeblast]

I'm halfway through Tarthang Tulku's "Transcending the limits of knowledge" but put it down because it seemed to say little with a whole lot of words. Perhaps I'll return to it.

 

 

Just because "Modern Science" knows that it has limitations doesnt mean that a "more modern science" wont be more complete. We're dealing with a veritable infinity of knowledge (especially if you're trying to solve the entire world via QM ) and our race is still relatively toddler-ish in its development - who'd realistically expect something "complete"???

[Encephalon]

I'm halfway through Tarthang Tulku's "Transcending the limits of knowledge" but put it down because it seemed to say little with a whole lot of words. Perhaps I'll return to it.

 

 

Just because "Modern Science" knows that it has limitations doesnt mean that a "more modern science" wont be more complete. We're dealing with a veritable infinity of knowledge (especially if you're trying to solve the entire world via QM ) and our race is still relatively toddler-ish in its development - who'd realistically expect something "complete"???

 

Yep. It is a popular practice for many to hold modern science to the impossibly high standard of explaining everything and then replacing it with pseudoscience when modern science 'fails' to deliver. And yet this same population can't even render a simple explanation of the internal combustion engine.

[doc benway]

Science is necessarily rooted in human thought which will always have limitations.

It is no surprise to conclude that science will always have limitations.

 

One of the most fascinating explorations of a very specific limitation is explored in a book by Huw Price called Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. It may or may not present defensible arguments but the discussion about our concept and experience of asymmetry in time's motion and how it arises from inherent and generally unrecognized bias in our approach to physics and philosophy is really compelling. It's not a light or easy read but I liked it.

[RyanO]

Science Must Destroy Religion!!!

 

In all seriousness, it's a great article as well as a worthwhile debate. There will always be extremists on all sides, and as always, I find the middle ground to be a healthy perspective.

 

Sam Harris, despite his sensationalist title, is however very sensible. His basic idea, as I understand it, is that when we allow ideas that have no rational basis into the public sphere and accept them in the name of tolerance, there is little we can do to combat dangerous dogmatic ideas. If we maintain firm rational ground with regard to all religions, however, then we are better suited to address harmful fundamentalist thinking.

 

That said, I do believe he has a little too much 'faith' in reason so to speak. I do like his point though that something can be non-rational but still have a rational basis, such as his views on spirituality.

 

Just to add a counter-point to the OP.

Edited March 22, 2011 by RyanO

[Immortal4life]

But I will still rely on science to offer me possible answers and explanations.

 

Certainly. Science has brought many practical insights and applications, despite previous scientific understandings being found wrong about things at times, and despite limitations when it comes to deeper or spiritual questions.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

[Aaron]

I just got done watching the documentary "The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance". It was well done and it's an object lesson as to why we shouldn't be making statements about the limitations of science, but rather the limitations of religious orthodoxy.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Ahem... I realize some of you might not get the reference. The Medici were a family of merchants in Florence Italy that were the actual patrons of much of what we call the Renaissance. One of there patrons was Galileo, who was forced to refute his scientific theories under threat of excommunication and death. The problem was that his scientific findings contradicted the Christian Cosmology of that time.

 

In the end he died a broken man, abandoned by everyone, simply because the greatest power of the day decreed him a heretic. When you dismiss something simply because you feel threatened by what it's saying, the best thing to do is examine why you feel threatened, because oftentimes, more than not, it's because deep down you feel that it might be the actual truth and the idea that what you've been taught to believe is untrue, is more frightening than accepting the truth.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Twinner