The PokéCommunity Forums Off-Topic Discussions Off-Topic
Will science eventually explain everything?

Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old October 18th, 2013 (11:43 AM).
Elysieum's Avatar
Elysieum Elysieum is offline
Requiescat en pace.
  • Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: By the lake.
Gender: Other
Nature: Calm
Posts: 258
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

Relevant Advertising!

  #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 View Post
    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 (2:22 PM).
    Kanzler's Avatar
    Kanzler Kanzler is offline
    naughty biscotti
    • Crystal Tier
     
    Join Date: Jul 2008
    Location: Toronto
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Relaxed
    Posts: 5,858
    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 (2:44 PM).
    Silais's Avatar
    Silais Silais is offline
    That useless reptile
       
      Join Date: Jul 2013
      Gender: Female
      Nature: Quiet
      Posts: 297
      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 (2:46 PM).
      Shamol's Avatar
      Shamol Shamol is offline
      Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
         
        Join Date: Aug 2013
        Location: Dhaka
        Age: 25
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Relaxed
        Posts: 195
        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.
        __________________
        "Perseverence in science needs to be tempered by flexibility."

        -Haig Kazazian, in Mobile DNA: Finding Treasures in Junk
        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

        Forum Jump


        All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:20 AM.