exnihilo

After reading over many of the posts here I am wondering what you all think of the limits of scientific investigation.
Thomas Kuhn in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions illustrated just how subjective and even "superstitious" science can be. The history of science seems to bear this out and shares many similarities with religion when it comes to the dogmatic adherence to certain established or traditional ideas expressed by followers of each. Of course, in many, if not most, other respects Scientific inquiry provides a superior means of constructing explanatory models.
But, if Kuhn and co., are correct, as well as postmodernists, there seems that there will always be a dark void of unknowing to which human capacities can never hope to understand.

My question is how many accept the notion of unknowability and how many believe that Kuhn and co., are ultimately wrong and think that science can indeed provide all the answers that we seek sometime in the future?

fando

It's true that there's a certain amount of dogmatic adherence to established beliefs in science, but to claim that this makes science ultimately incapable of complete discovery is shortsighted and ignorant of the wider processes that overcome ingrained beliefs. Unlike religion, there is always potential for change in opinion in science. That is, if there is ample reason to change a belief, scientists will change their beliefs. And if the old guard refuses to give up cherished notions, the young, new guard will replace them. Hence, inflexibility is merely temporal and not symptomatic of the entire process of science. I think religion is sort of the same, except that there is no built-in system to refine beliefs and no incentive to do so. Whenever a new way of thinking breaks loose, the churches splinter instead of adapt.

Witt

exnihilo:
After reading over many of the posts here I am wondering what you all think of the limits of scientific investigation.
Thomas Kuhn in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions illustrated just how subjective and even "superstitious" science can be.


"Belief in the causal nexus is superstition" Wittgenstein, Tractatus, page 79.

The axioms of science are examples of non-provable truths.
We can't know them, and we do believe them.

Perhaps, some scientists believe them religiously. But, the dogmatism of science must give way to facts and better theories, unlike the dogmatism of religion.

Any consistent scientific or logical method, that includes arithmetic, is incomplete. (Godel)

That is, there is no system that includes all truths.

That fact, is not a deterent to finding better and better systems of logic and of science, however incomplete they are.

exnihilo:
But, if Kuhn and co., are correct, as well as postmodernists, there seems that there will always be a dark void of unknowing to which human capacities can never hope to understand.

Yes, What we cannot speak about we 'must' pass in silence.

When it comes to spiritual things...I pass in silence, do you?

Witt

xoc

Science is distinguished best from religion in that it in many instances it involves a practicle rather than speculative kind of philosophy. Science must be shaped and judged by it's ability to evaluate/predict the observable phenomenon of the world, as measurable and physical. Religion presupposes a kind of metaphysics that is inherently unprovable objectively and speculative; one may "taste and see that the Lord is sweet" but this taste cannot be proven objectively to others, or passed around like a bottle of sweet wine.

Science may be at best a "useful fiction"(Nietzsche), but it is stilll a very useful fiction at least in it's endless unfoldments through technologies, medicine, etc. I used to consider that we should judge any philosophy/ideology by 2 factors, (metaphysical) "Truth" vs. usefulness(speculative vs. practicle). In the practicle sense, we cannot reach and know(or know we know) Metaphysical Truth as objective, so we are left with practicle application- the "usefulness" of the science:fiction, or the "usefulness" of religion as explanatory, beneficial to the inner being, etc. Science is wonderful for it's ability to translate directly into proof/disproof, we don't need to wait till we die to see the validity of a scientific theory(predictive and useful rather than relating absolute metaphysical "truth) unlike metaphysical dogmas, such proofs are found in the lab or in nature.

As we uncover more, we understand both more "what is" physically and also what we can't know- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is the best example I know of this, relating definite limitations to what is even possible to know of physics. The limitations of science in terms of offering moral foundations, or meaning to existence has already been well described, but it's use for us as a species and the endless discoveries ahead of us pertaining to the natural "sphere" is still in it's mere infancy. Both religion and science are branches of the "Philosophy" tree, so they share the same characteristics found in tree itself; ways of interpretting reality in ways testable empirically or logically.

Vorkosigan

Hmmm...tell you what I think. The most touching faith here is not in science, but in Kuhn. Abuse of Kuhn is perhaps the number one intellectual fault in modern thought.

Vorkosigan

DoubleDutchy

the analogy Its 'usefulness' is questionable I guess. (In saying so I willingly take the risk to be stoned to death, I know..) Science based technology has been around now for about 200 years. It has ru�ned large parts of the biosphere at an ever increasing speed; it is relying on ever scarcer ressources that certainly are not going to last for another 200 years. Mankind has more then tenfolded and the explosion is still in full swing, biologically speaking we are a grasshopper swarm on the move, more then anything else. Technology, sure, has enhanced human power in an unprecedented way. Since we never could handle power anyway nobody should be surprised by the resulting mess. We exchanged our humble steadily lighting candle for a sky rocket and might very well , after a couple of ooohs and aaahs, end up completely in the dark. Limits of human knowledge need not bother us too much, there are other limits that need more urgently to be adressed.

exnihilo

Certainly, some very interesting and thought-provoking responses, thanks all.

• If one looks at the history of scientific inquiry one must accept the fact that scientific theory is an ever developing field of knowledge. The theories of the past are always being replaced by new ones. Thus, theories are constantly being proven wrong, sometimes completely, others just in part. What would make us think that the theories we have now won't also be proven wrong? for judging by the past we have reason to think it is very probable.
  

Perhaps, but surely not by me, I am only posing the question, I don't ever remember stating a claim for Kuhn as such. But it seems old MR. Kuhn's ideas make people uncomfortable, Feyerabend and Lakatos and even Popper are much for useful is questioning the pretentions of science anyway. Kuhn merely sheds light on the processes. Faith in, in the theory of relativity are different only by degrees. How many people can truly understand even the most basic ideas behind such a theory??? Very very few. But does it matter that people are accepting such theories as fact based on what amounts to blind faith. Certainly copernicus ran into to this problem once I believe. I am not attacking science, it is one of the best means of knowing that we have, but to believe that science can answer all of our questions and explain everything is quite another matter altogether.

Here is my question:

Good one, but I think speaking about the results of science and technology is another concern altogether. Whether or not scientific inquiry ultimately leads to destruction, which is certainly the case, has no bearing on the ability of science to answer our questions about the universe. Certainly, at least to this point, Religious zeal has caused far more suffering from the crusades and the inquisition to modern war. Besides, the advancement of technologies of death are most often employed in the service of religiously motivated dogma's and political beliefs anyway.

xoc

Good point. Still I think you'll find that life in a country where technology and modern science fluorishes in abundance is generally more comfortable and pleasent then where it is still sorely lacking. So I am for technology and science. The reformation of the heart and society is also a good plan, yet nowhere near as realistic or plausible. So if our world can't know peace, at least let it know HDTV. IT's unlikely we are reaching any state of moral maturity as a whole so the admonishment to "wait till your older" before we take on new technologies is not going to work. We are mostly mature enough to handle it, we have had nuclear weapons for about 60 years and they have only been used in one war on two occasions still. Considering the level of pettiness and posturing to be found in world leaders and their rival, this is actually pretty impressive.

Deke

An interesting question, thanks for posting it. There doesn�t seem to be any reason to think that science is bounded in some universal way. That is, I cannot think of a reason why, given enough time, human beings couldn�t investigate and theorize about much/most/all of the natural phenomena we are capable of perceiving (either directly or indirectly). Put otherwise, there seems no reason that the method of science cannot be employed to generate an explanatory model for every natural occurrence, thing, etc. If we had superfast space ships and a massive budget, we could be doing this right now.

Now clearly, science is limited to the domain of nature � which is why scientific �proof� or �disproof� for supernatural notions, like God, is impossible. As well, it seems difficult is to imagine that science could ever provide meaningful answers for questions such as �How should I treat my neighbor?� or �How can I let my girlfriend down easy?� We may at some point be able to reduce, and therefore �explain�, all human emotions and interactions from a chemical and biologic perspective, but knowing the physics behind feeling ecstatic is not as pleasant as feeling ecstatic�so �feeling� ecstatic is a better model for ecstasy than is its scientific explanation.

MHO,

Deke

paul30

Kant believed that because we are bound by our perceptual apparatus, the external world (das Ding an sich) was ultimately unknowable. What we think we know, he said, is just our take on things, which may be miles off.

But he did believe there was an external world, and we weren't making it up.

I am not so sure there is an external world.

I think there is, but I really have grave doubts, expecially when things like George W. Bush happen.

And I tend to lean, at least occasionally, toward the notion that we do make it up--that is, that our take on the world is so limited and so conditioned by our needs and wants that in in essence we experience what we want or expect to experience, and the external world, if there is one, is hardly anything like what we see.