100%(2)100% нашли этот документ полезным (2 голоса)
5K просмотров3 страницы
Science has been successful in describing our universe, but it is not applicable to everything. There are many things which science is not capable of studying, such as the existence of God. Belief in certain things must be based on faith rather than on science.
Science has been successful in describing our universe, but it is not applicable to everything. There are many things which science is not capable of studying, such as the existence of God. Belief in certain things must be based on faith rather than on science.
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
Science has been successful in describing our universe, but it is not applicable to everything. There are many things which science is not capable of studying, such as the existence of God. Belief in certain things must be based on faith rather than on science.
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
Limitations of Science There is certainly an inner spiritual
reality which exists within but separate
Although science has been very from the outer physical reality which successful in describing our universe science can study. No matter how and in helping us to design new much we want it to, science cannot technology, it it not applicable to define God or the nature of the human everything. Part of the general spirit because they are not physical. confusion in today's world originates This does not mean they do not exist, from people's inability to decide for it only means that these things are not themselves what makes sense and physical and cannot be studied with what doesn't. physical science. Belief in certain things must be based on faith rather 10.1. Possible But Useless than on science. The existence of God is debatable using rules of logic, but no amount of discourse will prove or "It may be possible to describe disprove His existence, since any logic everything in scientific terms, but it is no better than the least valid of its would be useless." Einstein suppositions. Scientific proof requires that suppositions are also proven 10.2. Science is not applicable to all rather than accepted on faith, areas although it is clear that not every scientist has examined personally each One mistake we often make is to and every postulate of physical assume that science should be able to science. answer all of our questions about the universe and our place in it. This 10.2.1.1. must be taken on faith comes from the reliance which we place on science as a culture, without 10.2.1.2. is debatable using rules really understanding what it is good for of logic and what it is not. There are many things which science is not capable of studying. Questions like 10.2.1.3. logic is no better than the existence of God, the beginning of the least valid of its suppositions life, ethical, moral, and legal issues such as abortion, drug use. Spiritual 10.2.1.4. cannot be proven or issues such as reincarnation and life disproven beyond all doubt after death are not suitable for scientific study because of the inability 10.2.2. moral / ethical questions to collect data. This is not to say we do not believe in such things, nor is it to Science cannot decide moral or ethical say that they cannot occur and affect questions, like the existence of good or us in some way or another. evil, and science by itself is neither, We need to make it clear at this point good nor evil. Science is a tool, and that just because something cannot be like any tool it can be put to bad or studied scientifically does not mean good use. Likewise, science cannot be that it has no value or that it is used to decide whether a particular charlatan. activity or action is good or evil, right Some things are simply not of the type or wrong, pure or tainted. that can be studied by science. We must work hard to keep from getting 10.2.2.1. right/wrong, good /evil confused. are subjective
10.2.1. existence of God 10.2.2.2. subject to cultural
paradigms and societal norms 10.2.2.3. universal principles are manipulated. That is the purpose that not agreed upon art and poetry serve, it is not the realm of science. 10.2.2.3.1. spanning all cultures 10.2.2.3.2. spanning all time 10.3.1. Is music just vibrations or 10.2.2.3.3. under all is it good vibrations? circumstances and conditions 10.3.2. Is love just hormones or is it an indescribable emotional 10.2.3. esthetics thing?
A scientific theory may be beautiful or The Limitations of Science
elegant, and many are. In fact, most scientists would prefer a beautiful Mankind has never devised a better theory over an ugly one. But science tool for solving the mysteries of the alone cannot decide what is beautiful universe than science. However, there and what is not, and science cannot be are some kinds of questions for which used to judge Quality. scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words, science has limitations. 10.2.3.1. a scientific theory may be beautiful There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our 10.2.3.2. science cannot decide questions. All of these have the same what is beautiful and what is not problem: The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since 10.2.3.3. science cannot judge testability is so vital to the scientific Quality process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science. 10.3. Science is not the only way nor the best way The three areas of limitation are
Even if science could be used to • Science can't answer questions
describe feelings or emotions it is about value. For example, there doubtful that such a study would add is no scientific answer to the anything, and would, as Einstein said, questions, "Which of these be useless. flowers is prettier?" or "which A piece of music might be described as smells worse, a skunk or a a series of vibrations or as a particular skunk cabbage?" And of course, set of nerve impulses. It is unlikely that there's the more obvious looking at the magnetic patterns example, "Which is more stored on a casette tape will bring valuable, one ounce of gold or forth the same response as listening to one ounce of steel?" Our culture the music. Such a description will not places value on the element in any way move the listener in the gold, but if what you need is same way that listening to the music something to build a skyscraper will. with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no Love, fear, hunger, etc.. might way to scientifically determine eventually be described as purely value. chemical interactions, or as nerve impulses, but wouldn't we rather think • Science can't answer questions of them as more than that? Doesn't of morality. The problem of our humanity demand that we still deciding good and bad, right have emotional reactions which cannot and wrong, is outside the be described, predicted, and determination of science. This is why expert scientific LIMITATIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC witnesses can never help us METHOD solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus 1. The scientific method is develops; the question of limited to what can be whether it is right or wrong to observed with the five terminate those events is senses. determined by cultural and 2. The scientific method is social rules--in other words, limited to the present. morality. The science can't help 3. The scientific method is here. limited to telling us “how” a process works, not “why.” Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from 4. The scientific method is limited in that it is amoral consideration of the moral (non-moral). issues surrounding what they 5. The scientific method is do. Like all humans, they are limited in that it cannot deal accountable morally and with the unique. 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.