Limitations Of Science

Limitations of Science Although science has been very successful in describing our universe and in helping us to design new technology, it it not applicable to everything. Part of the general confusion in today's world originates from people's inability to decide for themselves what makes sense and what doesn't. 10.1. Possible But Useless "It may be possible to describe everything in scientific terms, but it would be useless." Einstein 10.2. Science is not applicable to all areas One mistake we often make is to assume that science should be able to answer all of our questions about the universe and our place in it. This comes from the reliance which we place on science as a culture, without really understanding what it is good for and what it is not. There are many things which science is not capable of studying. Questions like the existence of God, the beginning of life, ethical, moral, and legal issues such as abortion, drug use. Spiritual issues such as reincarnation and life after death are not suitable for scientific study because of the inability to collect data. This is not to say we do not believe in such things, nor is it to say that they cannot occur and affect us in some way or another. We need to make it clear at this point that just because something cannot be studied scientifically does not mean that it has no value or that it is charlatan. Some things are simply not of the type that can be studied by science. We must work hard to keep from getting confused. 10.2.1. existence of God

There is certainly an inner spiritual reality which exists within but separate from the outer physical reality which science can study. No matter how much we want it to, science cannot define God or the nature of the human spirit because they are not physical. This does not mean they do not exist, it only means that these things are not physical and cannot be studied with physical science. Belief in certain things must be based on faith rather than on science. The existence of God is debatable using rules of logic, but no amount of discourse will prove or disprove His existence, since any logic is no better than the least valid of its suppositions. Scientific proof requires that suppositions are also proven rather than accepted on faith, although it is clear that not every scientist has examined personally each and every postulate of physical science. 10.2.1.1. must be taken on faith 10.2.1.2. is debatable using rules of logic 10.2.1.3. logic is no better than the least valid of its suppositions 10.2.1.4. cannot be proven or disproven beyond all doubt 10.2.2. moral / ethical questions Science cannot decide moral or ethical questions, like the existence of good or evil, and science by itself is neither, good nor evil. Science is a tool, and like any tool it can be put to bad or good use. Likewise, science cannot be used to decide whether a particular activity or action is good or evil, right or wrong, pure or tainted. 10.2.2.1. right/wrong, good /evil are subjective 10.2.2.2. subject to cultural paradigms and societal norms

10.2.2.3. universal principles are not agreed upon 10.2.2.3.1. spanning all cultures 10.2.2.3.2. spanning all time 10.2.2.3.3. under all circumstances and conditions 10.2.3. esthetics A scientific theory may be beautiful or elegant, and many are. In fact, most scientists would prefer a beautiful theory over an ugly one. But science alone cannot decide what is beautiful and what is not, and science cannot be used to judge Quality. 10.2.3.1. a scientific theory may be beautiful 10.2.3.2. science cannot decide what is beautiful and what is not 10.2.3.3. science cannot judge Quality 10.3. Science is not the only way nor the best way Even if science could be used to describe feelings or emotions it is doubtful that such a study would add anything, and would, as Einstein said, be useless. A piece of music might be described as a series of vibrations or as a particular set of nerve impulses. It is unlikely that looking at the magnetic patterns stored on a casette tape will bring forth the same response as listening to the music. Such a description will not in any way move the listener in the same way that listening to the music will. Love, fear, hunger, etc.. might eventually be described as purely chemical interactions, or as nerve impulses, but wouldn't we rather think of them as more than that? Doesn't our humanity demand that we still have emotional reactions which cannot be described, predicted, and

manipulated. That is the purpose that art and poetry serve, it is not the realm of science. 10.3.1. Is music just vibrations or is it good vibrations? 10.3.2. Is love just hormones or is it an indescribable emotional thing? The Limitations of Science Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words, science has limitations. There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science. The three areas of limitation are •

Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.

•

Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This

is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here. Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do. •

Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach. In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.

So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've stepped outside of these limitations.

LIMITATIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1. The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five senses. 2. The scientific method is limited to the present. 3. The scientific method is limited to telling us “how” a process works, not “why.” 4. The scientific method is limited in that it is amoral (non-moral). 5. The scientific method is limited in that it cannot deal with the unique.