Why can't Science explain everything?

hey (((blue)))

i'd very much like to know what you're thinking about specifically; give me a couple of examples to play about with, will you? i'm in that kind of mood...

i like the first part of venus' answer, that "not everything that counts can be counted" but, the second part of the response intrigues me just as much as your post does.

now, if we're talking about things which don't make sense, or cannot be scientifically explained to a very high degree of satisfaction, like the placebo effect or dark matter, that is not to say that certain things are always bound to remain a mystery. i mean, one problem or question will sometimes engender a quick an easy solution or answer but, sometimes, it will merely engender loads more questions and problems; it is still progress, it still means we're walking in the right direction. knowledge is a cumulative process. it goes on, it becomes more refined or sophisticated and efficient with the passage of time and as new methods and technologies increasingly support it. take the study of consciousness, for instance, that's a field of enquiry which is still experiencing birth pangs. we have a way to go, but that's part of the thrill, the possibilities.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600...

edit for everyone, but inspired by michael's post (nice to see you, by the way, you always have something really good to bring to the table):

whilst i agree that it is culture rather than science that will answer the question of why we should do science, even cultural studies benefit from the insights science brings. yes, we attribute value and meaning but, surely, if we come to understand ourselves better, then the science we do (and the same would apply to all of our endeavours) will be better. for example, where would psychology be if neuroscience had never come along? isn't architecture improved when we have a better grasp of what a person needs to thrive? this is something science is helping with, it can establish the biological/physiological reactions to our built environment. think of the way in which neuroscience is challenging the way we think of and deal with criminality.

as for the limits of our minds, again, i find myself agreeing in part. sure, there's a great deal which escapes us but, there's also a lot of things which our minds couldn't possibly do but technology takes care of. a computer can handle vast amounts of data, do impossibly complex calculations at speeds i can barely comprehend, and that's all moving forward too, it's all in the process of evolving. i don't mean to overestimate science and technology, i am a big fan of the humanities and our lives would be the poorer without them. i just find, more and more, that there's very little which science cannot speak to (it doesn't always work the other way around).

i, for one, am glad the horizon of knowledge is constantly escaping our reach, that's what makes this journey so incredibly interesting and exciting, it's what keeps us on our toes, over-reaching, stretching our imaginations and our capabilities, testing our very limits and pushing every boundary we come across. there is always something to strive for, always something to learn, always a little fact to polish, a bit of data to analyse again under a different light. would i want to see the end of that? no thanks.

michael:

i wish i had this man's mind, for the purposes of discussing with you the possibility of correcting our anthropic bias, but sadly, i am not that clever i just don't like saying "never" :)

http://www.nickbostrom.com/

You appear to be assuming that science cannot explain everything. If anything is going to, it should be science. Science is the only tool we have to help attempt to observe, and then explain anything in the universe from a human perspective.

"The Scientific Method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

Science's intelligence is only limited by human intelligence. Human intelligence is limited if a mystery of the universe goes unresolved.

From a human standpoint, no, science is the greatest "genius". It's the collection of all of the information human beings have acquired about the universe, and it will continue to be the greatest "genius" as long as humans exist. Everything we've learned about how the universe works has been put into science, and that vast amount of information will only continue to grow as our species ages.

There are at least two reasons why science cannot explain everything:

First, the nature of science itself. Science cannot answer non-empirical questions. For example, science cannot tell us why we should do science in the first place. That is a question of value, and must be answered by culture (or individual scientists living in it). But it has no "scientific" answer.

The second reason is anthropic bias. We can only ask, and understand, questions/answers that our minds can comprehend. This places an absolute limit on our ability to understand the universe. Unless one is naive enough to believe that the entire universe is accessible to our perception and imagination, there is no way we can boot strap ourselves out of our base line existence. That means there will always be things we don't understand. More than that: there will always be things we don't even know that we don't understand.

For what it's worth, your question brings to light one of my pet peeves. The hubris of some 'scientific' spokespeople simply astounds me. In our self-glorying we constantly seem to forget that we are not the authors of existence. Professor Hawkings' latest book is a terrific example of a brilliant mind that should consider your question carefully.

Added for Fractal:

Technology cannot overcome our Anthropic bias. Our tools might allow us to overcome our physical limitations, so some extent, but they cannot allow us to think the unthinkable. If they did, we wouldn't be able to understand them. That isn't at all to say that we cannot come to understand a great deal more than we now do. Nor is the effort misspent. But ultimate understanding will always elude us.

I would also add a paraphrase of CS Lewis' that I like: 'Man's conquest of nature has always in practice been Man's conquest of other men with nature as the means." This fact, assuming it is one, is something else science cannot explain. We are not completely rational which means by implication that the universe isn't either (we are part of the universe). So how can science ever hope to explain the irrational?

For one thing...

We invented all words you use to speak and write with, but words are still only "abstract" symbols that only "describe to us humans" a "phantom" of what an object or feeling "really" is, and science has discovered many things that most people use on a daily basis, but I'll bet even "you" don't know ho your computer works or why, because the the "explanation" is complicated, and to really and truly understand it, you have to have a lot of "higher education" and such, therefore...

Science can and will eventually explain everything to the best that words can ever do, but we all know that our experience as individuals inside ourselves cannot never be truly understood by "any" explanation, because we are complex beings that have been evolving from babies to full grown adults and on into old and eventually death, and it is a trip and a half...

Hello friend Blue, science is nothing but a systematic study without any bias in the mind. Science mostly depends on material aspects. But nature has not only material but also spiritual parts. Space is not 'nothing' but it is something. But the truth is that that space is relative one. Relative to whom? Relative to the observer. Then using science observer is to be found out. I mean the true observer. So science definitely would explain everything. This will happen soon in the near future as technology has got a good momentum.

Sometimes somethings remained as mystery because some secrets are not meant to be revealed because nature doesn't allow us to......the only thing that can reveled them is nature and nature created the human potentiality and ability symbol that is "Brain" as in some 10% part of the brain there are some magical or extraordinary powers that can revealed the whole universe ....

Apart from that SCIENCE is just the creation of human mind that are proved on the books by theoretical and experimental methods....

It's not the Science's intelligence that's limited, it's the human mind.

Remember, we are a race that until several hundred years ago thought the earth was flat and everything revolved around it. One day there will be an explanation for everything we want to know now, but new questions arrive. We know pretty much everything we wanted to know 100 years ago, and still aren't satisfied.

Science.....only 'discovers'....what has been, or is there. Can only 'speculate' on what 'might' happen in some calculated future. It is NOT MORE than any HUMAN thinking. Its 'discoveries' are only meant to amuse and amaze human innate curiosity and hunger to touch the subject of the 'unknown'. Without the aid of machines and tools, science is as good as any human configuration of his own imagination. Who could better TELL how something came to existence -----except the ONE who made it happen? Not one of us can accurately suppose the mystery of the universe.....because we were NOT THERE when it all began. Science, in its limitless guessing, is limited in its synchronized master thinking.

Science can't explain everything because it is limited by human intelligence and understanding.

Science is still evolving, it's not perfect, and it may never be. That doesn't mean there is a higher being, though, it just means that our abilities to understand the universe around us are limited.