Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > The Round Table
Reload this Page Will science eventually explain everything?

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

The Round Table Have a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old October 18th, 2013 (11:43 AM).
Elysieum's Avatar
Elysieum Elysieum is offline
Ely.
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: By the lake.
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
Posts: 21
Depends on what everything means really, but I tend not to think that science will get there. 'Everything' is a term of absolutism, which seems to be against the inquisitive and always-seeking-improvement nature of science.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27    
Old October 18th, 2013 (12:42 PM).
Darkroman Darkroman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 181
Quote originally posted by Elysieum:
Depends on what everything means really, but I tend not to think that science will get there. 'Everything' is a term of absolutism, which seems to be against the inquisitive and always-seeking-improvement nature of science.
That brings up another question... Will science evolve into absolutism?
Reply With Quote
  #28    
Old October 18th, 2013 (02:22 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 4,772
Science is rather anti-absolutist, at least that's how it's becoming lately. Modernism can tend to be absolutist, and as long as science is associated with a modernist viewpoint (inevitability, progression, the realization of truth) people are going to perceive science aas absolutist when that connection isn't really clear.
Reply With Quote
  #29    
Old October 20th, 2013 (02:44 PM).
Silais's Avatar
Silais Silais is offline
Princess of the Law
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 290
I think we can assume that science DOES explain everything; it is human limitation that prevents us from being able to understand or use those sciences.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30    
Old October 20th, 2013 (02:46 PM).
Shamol's Avatar
Shamol Shamol is offline
Omelette du fromage
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dhaka
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 47
Send a message via Skype™ to Shamol
Science- understood as the method of inquiry based on sensory perception (and its analogues and derivatives)- is simply not equipped to deal with some questions about reality, such as ethical or aesthetic truths. It needs to be supplemented with other branches of human knowledge to produce a coherent picture about reality. Some academics have used the term "sci-phi" to refer to the mode of inquiry characterized by the conjoined effort of science and philosophy to discover truths about this world. This latter approach seems much more viable to me.

Whether science (or any mode of human inquiry, for that matter) can explain everything isn't an interesting question, to my mind. After all, human knowledge-gathering processes by definition require some sort of grounding. Science is grounded in our trust in inductive and other sorts of reasoning, which in turn are based on truths of logic and an assumption about how the world is, which in turn are perhaps best explained as brute facts about reality. So either we end up grounding explanations in something, or with an infinite regress of explanations. A more interesting question I think is whether science can discover truths which are practically relevant to us. In some cases, for example, "I don't know/I can't explain X" is a perfectly relevant answer. Sure, demarcating what it means to say "practically relevant" is a difficult question, and I don't think any straightforward answer can be given to this- because it is, to an extent, subjective.

Sorry for such a wet noodle conclusion, lol.

Also, I don't see the point of whether scientific/mathematical truths are created/discovered debate. It's obvious that some core tenets of mathematics are discovered. Sure, we made a jargon to make sense of it, but that jargon has real properties and instances as referents.
__________________
Check out my blog
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

Forum Jump


All times are UTC -8. The time now is 02:16 PM.